HC grants bail to 2008 blast accused, in jail for 12 years, says courts must play doctors to save rights

New Delhi: Courts must not play coroner but doctors to save legal or Constitutional rights from demise before they are extinguished, the Delhi High Court said on Wednesday while granting bail to a UAPA accused who was in custody for more than 12 years as an undertrial in a bomb blast case.

A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J Bhambhani said the accused — Mohd Hakim who allegedly carried cycle ball-bearings from Lucknow to Delhi for allegedly making Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) to be employed in a series of bomb blasts that occurred in Delhi in 2008 —made out a case of his right to speedy trial being defeated and violated if he is not enlarged on bail.

The accused, in custody since February 2009, approached the high court in appeal against a trial court order rejecting his bail application in the criminal case under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The bench observed that even if it is assumed that the accused would be awarded a life sentence after the completion of the trial, he has already undergone more than half the sentence he may eventually face.

"The appellant has spent more than 12 years in custody as an undertrial; 256 witnesses have been examined over the last about 12 years, but 60 prosecution witnesses still remain to be examined. Regardless of how much longer the trial may take hereafter, the incarceration of more than 12 years suffered by the appellant in custody as an undertrial would certainly qualify as a long enough period for the system to acknowledge that the appellant''s right to speedy trial continues to be defeated," the court stated.

"Courts must not play coroner and attend to legal or constitutional rights only after they are ''dead''. Instead we must play doctor, and save such rights from demise before they are extinguished. Courts should pro-actively step-in to protect such rights from being stifled and buried," it observed.

The bench added that the courts must be vigilant, and "act as sentinels on the qui vive when it comes to protecting constitutional and legal right".