Text

Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh., 2024

---

FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case the appellant was arrested on 23.02.2015 near the Indo-Nepal border after being
found in the possession of counterfeit Indian currency notes which was amounting to Rupees
26,03,500 in the denominations of Rupees 1000 and Rupees 500. The recovery of the same
was made around 9:10 pm on 22.02.2015 by a constable from the anti-terrorism squad and an
FIR was also lodged by inspector Tej Bahadur Singh under sections 121a, 489b and 489c of
the Indian penal code. This case was registered as Crime No.1 of 2015. Join the time of
investigation, the appellant identified himself as Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @
Javed Ansari, he was a resident of Narayani, Parsa, Belwa Nepal full stop in addition to the
counterfeit notes driving licence, Nepalese citizenship certificate and to mobile phone was
also seized from his possession. The appellant allegedly confessed to be involved in the
circulation of counterfeit Indian currency in Nepal. A charge sheet under sections 489 b and
489c of Indian penal code was filed on 19.08.2015. along with that a supplementary chart
sheet under section 16 of the unlawful activities prevention was filed on 26.08.2015,
following sanctions from the Hon'ble Governor dated 25.08.2015. This matter was registered
before the trial court as case number 940 of 2015. The appellants bail application was
rejected by an additional session judge (special) judge, Lucknow on 24.08.2016. A
subsequent and bail plea before the High Court was also dismissed for the same. On
13.01.2017, the home department of Uttar Pradesh modified the earlier sanction. Thereafter
the governor granted full sanction for prosecution under section 16 of unlawful activities
prevention which is punishable under section 45(2) of the Act. The appellant then files a
special leave petition criminal diary number 11387 of 2024 before the Supreme Court of
India by order dated 10th April 2024 the code had condoned the delay in filing the petition 2
and had also issued notice for the same. The case was subsequently registered as special leave
petition criminal number 5260 of 2024 and was heard by the vacation bench on 3rd July
2024.

ISSUES OF THE CASE
.Rejection of Bail Application by the High Court: The appeal arose from High
Court’s decision dated 03.04.2023 in criminal misc bail application no. 2282 of 2021,
where the petitioner’s plea was rejected, which was under Section 489B, 489C IPC,
and section 16 of the UAPA.

 Dismissal of Discharge Application and framing of Charges: The Trail court by
the common order dated 27.05.2016, rejected the appellant’s discharge application
and directed the framing charges under the relevant provisions of the IPC and the
UAPA. Formal charges framed on 16.07.2016, and the appellant pleaded not guilty.

 Challenge to framing of the charges before the High Court: The appellant filed a
petition under Section 482 Cr.p.c before the High Court, challenging both the order
rejecting the discharge application (27.05.2016) and the order framing charges
(16.07.2016), particularly in relation to Section 16 UAPA.
 High Court’s Findings on invalid sanction under UAPA: The High Court by order
dated 08.10.2021, held that the sanctions dated 25.08.2015 and 13.01.2017 were
invalid due to lack of independent review as required under Section 45(2) of the
UAPA. It was observed that the sanction orders reflected non-application of mind and
did not fulfil the statutory mandate.

 Partial Quashing of Cognizance and Charges under UAPA: Consequently, the
High Court quashed the trail court’s cognizance and framing of charges to the extent
of the offence under Section 16 of the UAPA. The trail was directed to proceed solely
with respect to the offences under section 489B and 489V of the IPC.



ARGUMENTS OF THE CASE
Petitioner’s contention
In the interim, the appellant approached the High court seeking regular bail under the section
439 of Crpc, which was registered as criminal miscellaneous bail application no 2282 of
2021. By the impugned order dated 03.04.2023, the High Court declined to grant bail,
observing that the offences alleged against the appellant of a serious nature. All though
appellant had already under gone incarceration of 8 years at the time and the prosecution has
examined only two witnesses the court express apprehension regarding the appearance
foreign nationality Notting that he is a citizen of Nepal and may potentially abs there by a
wedding the judicial process for stop on this basis the high court rejected the bail application.
Learn Council for the appellant, Mr Ms Khan submitted that apparent has now removed in
custody for over 9 years and given the extremely slow pace of the trial there exist no realistic
prospect of its conclusion in the near future. It was there for contended that appellant is
entitle to be and last bail. It is a settle principal of law that every accused is entitled to a
speedy trial which has been recognised as a fundamental right under article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has in numerous decisions reiterated that and you
daily in trial process cannot be a ground to indefinitely, even in cases involving serious
offences. On the contrary the gravity of the offence imposes a greater responsibility on the
prosecution to ensure the conclusion of the trial is indefinite prolonged seriousness of the
charges alone cannot be continued incarceration particularly where there is no clear lifetime
for the completion of the proceedings.

Respondent’s contention
On the other hand, Ms. Garima Prasad, learned additional advocate general for the state of
Uttar Pradesh, opposed the grant of bail, contending that the charges against the appellant are
of a grave nature and, being a foreign national, he poses a significant flight risk. She
submitted that instead of granting bail, the trail court may be directed to expedite the
proceedings. Referring to the counter affidavit and relying on the recent judgement in
Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, she argued that as the appellant is charged under the
UAPA, the statutory bar under the Act applies, and he is not entitled to bail.



JUDGEMENTS OF THE CASE
In view of the appellant’s prolonged incarceration, the slow progress of the trail, and the
absence of any definite timeline for its conclusion, the Supreme Court found merit in
reconsidering the appellant’s bail application. Emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy
trial under Article 21, the court observed that the appellant had remained in custody for over
nine years, during which only two prosecution witnesses had been examined. Such delay, the
court noted, undermines the fairness of continued detention. While acknowledging the
seriousness of the charges under the UAPA, the court held that procedural delays cannot
override the fundamental rights of the Accused. Accordingly, the matter was considered fit
for re-evaluation of bail.

---

Detail Information

Title

Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh., 2024

Court

: supreme court., 2024

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2790 OF 2024

Matter(s)

-

Councels

Mr. Manu Shanker, Ms. M.S Khan, Ms. Garima Prasad

Statement of Responsibility

Sweety Kumari Shaw/Sister Nivedita University, Kolkata

See Also

File Attachment

Comments

---

You must be logged in to post a comment