New Delhi: The Supreme Court has recently made various remarks including "criminals are not born but made" and "every saint has a past and every sinner a future," among others, when it pitched for the accused's right to a speedy trial.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan made these observations while granting bail to an accused in connection with a counterfeit currency case.
"Criminals are not born but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult," the court said.
"Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future," the court acknowledged.
The court, in its July 3 order, also pointed out the factors that may be responsible for making the offender commit the crime.
"When a crime is committed, a variety of factors are responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations," the court said.
The court's remarks came when it pulled up the National Investigation Agency for delay in the trial in connection with a counterfeit currency case and granted bail to the accused.
Acknowledging that "Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime," the court said, "If the State or any prosecuting agency, including the court concerned, has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious."
"We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused, not a convict. The overarching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be," the court said.
"We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution."
"In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside," the court said.
"The appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions which the trial court may deem fit to impose. However, we on our own would impose the condition that the appellant shall not leave the limits of Mumbai city and shall mark his presence at the concerned NIA office or police station once every fifteen days. Any other condition which the trial court may deem fit to impose, it may do so in accordance with law," the court said.
The petitioner had challenged the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 5th February 2024, by which the High Court declined to release the appellant on bail in connection with his prosecution under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (for short UAPA).
The accused was arrested on 9th February 2020 by Mumbai Police at a bus stop in Andheri with a bag containing 1,193 counterfeit Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs 2,000. Later, the case was transferred to the NIA. The prosecution's case is that the consignment of counterfeit notes was smuggled from Pakistan to Mumbai.
The court noted that two co-accused were arrested in connection with this offense and both are on bail as of today.
"We wonder by what period of time the trial will ultimately conclude. However serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to a speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India," the court said.
