Serious Charges No Bar to Right of Speedy Trial, Says Supreme Court In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional rights, the Supreme Court of India in Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh held that the gravity of criminal charges cannot eclipse an individual’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure that prolonged pre-trial incarceration does not result in injustice, regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offence. Background of the Case The appellant, Ashfaq Ansari, was arrested in February 2015 at the Indo-Nepal border, allegedly in possession of counterfeit Indian currency worth over ₹26 lakhs. He was booked under sections 121A, 489B, and 489C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). He was accused of operating an illegal counterfeit currency trade across borders, and several incriminating documents, including a Nepalese ID, were recovered. Despite chargesheets being filed in August 2015, and sanction for prosecution under UAPA granted the same month, the trial failed to gain traction over the years. His discharge application was rejected in 2016, and while the Allahabad High Court quashed the UAPA sanction in 2021 due to procedural defects, a new sanction was issued in December 2021. Even so, by April 2023, only two witnesses had been examined, prompting the appellant to seek bail on the grounds of excessive delay. The High Court denied the bail, citing the gravity of the offences and his foreign nationality. Supreme Court’s Observations Hearing the appeal against the High Court’s denial of bail, the Supreme Court laid down several important principles: • Prolonged Incarceration as Ground for Bail: The Court noted that the appellant had spent over nine years in custody with minimal progress in trial. Such delays, it held, constituted a clear violation of his right to a speedy trial. • Right to Speedy Trial Prevails: Emphasizing that seriousness of charges cannot override fundamental rights, the Court relied on its earlier ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which established that where trials are unlikely to conclude promptly, continued detention becomes untenable. • Responsibility of the Judiciary: The apex court highlighted the judiciary’s obligation to uphold procedural fairness, even in terrorism-related or other grave offences. The trial court was instructed to expedite proceedings, while bail was granted to the appellant. Legal Significance and Implications This ruling serves as a crucial precedent for future bail applications in cases involving stringent laws like the UAPA. It reiterates that: • Delay in judicial process is a valid ground for bail, irrespective of how severe the allegations are; • The Constitution does not permit preventive punishment through extended pre-trial custody; • The balance between individual liberty and the interest of justice must be maintained even in cases involving national security concerns.