New Delhi: Contrary to its interpretation of the Article 21 of Constitution to deny bail to student leaders Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the Supreme Court has granted bail to 'Amtech' promoter Arvind Dham in a PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) case, which has strict bail provisions equivalent to the UAPA. Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which says that an accused should not be granted bail if there is prima facie reasonable basis for the case, and Section 45 of the PMLA are similar in severity.
The following day Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe granted bail to Arvind Dham, who had been in jail for 16 months in a Rs 27,000 crore fraud case, completely rejecting the arguments put forward by a bench comprising Justices Arvind Kumar and Anjaria to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who have been in jail for five years, citing the stringent bail conditions of the UAPA Act. The two contrasting judgments, which gave different interpretations to the same constitutional article, have led to heated debate in legal circles.
Speedy trial is the fundamental right of the accused
Granting bail to Arvind Dham, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe stated that speedy trial is a fundamental right of any accused and that fundamental right cannot be denied on the grounds of the gravity of the crime alleged. The personal freedom envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution also includes speedy trial. The bench pointed out that in several cases the court granted bail to the accused ,who had spent from 3 to 17 months in jail, without considering the gravity of crime but considering the delay in the trial. However, the day before the Supreme Court stated, denying bail to Umar and Sharjeel, that bail cannot be granted solely on the basis of the length of the trial and that the gravity of the crime alleged should be considered. The bench reminded that keeping the accused in jail for long without starting the trial and any logical progress in it would turn the under trial itself into a punishment. In the event of not expediting the trial in accordance with the Constitution, the prosecution should not oppose bail applications on the grounds that the crime committed was serious.
Legal experts disagree
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Sanjay Hegde pointed out that the two bail verdicts came out differently due to the opposite interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Many view it is not UAPA but some people are the problem. Sanjay Hegde said that the court should not selectively rule on bail petitions like this. Advocate Karuna Nandi also pointed out that while denying bail to Umar Khalid, who did not call for riots and did not handle funds, it should have borne in mind that only two percent of the cases charged under UAPA were proven.