Rajasthan High Court Slams Delay In Trial Against Bangladeshi Citizens Languishing In Jail For 18 Months But Refuses Bail
While underscoring the extension of fundamental rights under Article 21 to foreign nationals, Rajasthan High Court slammed the trial court for failing to frame charges and commence trial in a matter concerning two Bangladeshi citizens in jail for over 1.5 years.In doing so the court underscored that foreign nationals facing trial in India are also entitled to Right to Life and Dignity...
While underscoring the extension of fundamental rights under Article 21 to foreign nationals, Rajasthan High Court slammed the trial court for failing to frame charges and commence trial in a matter concerning two Bangladeshi citizens in jail for over 1.5 years.
In doing so the court underscored that foreign nationals facing trial in India are also entitled to Right to Life and Dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are foreign Nationals and resident of Bangladesh and were in judicial custody since April, 2024 in a criminal case.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that such act of the trial court was not appreciated, and it could not defer the matter from one day to another unnecessarily by entertaining unwanted requests made by parties, and causing delays in framing the charges.
"this Court cannot lose the sight of the material aspect of the matter that the petitioners are in custody since 23.04.2024 and they have been charge-sheeted along-with other co-accused persons long back and till date, inspite of passing of more than one and a half year the charges have not been framed against the accused persons and the trial has not commenced as yet. This Court does not appreciate such act of the Trial Court. The Trial Court cannot defer the matter from one day to another unnecessarily, by entertaining the unwanted requests made by any of the parties and thereby cause unnecessary delay in framing the charges. The Trial Court is expected to consider their material aspect of the matter that some of the accused persons like the petitioners are in custody, for last more than one and a half year".
The court noted that the trial had not commenced as yet and even charges have not been framed in spite of passing of one and half year of their judicial custody.
"They have the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The protection under Article 21, which guarantees the right of life and personal liberty, extends to all persons and this right is not confined to Indian Citizens alone and it is available to the foreign Nationals as well, who are not the citizens of India" the court added.
The matter pertained to an FIR being filed with allegation of illegal kidney transplantation and human trafficking in which the petitioners were arrested, and they became approvers.
Based on the police statements of the petitioners, other co-accused in the case were arrested. Subsequently, the main and principal accused, who were involved in the racket of kidney transplantation were granted benefit of regular bail. However, the petitioners being the approvers were still in custody. Hence, petition was filed before the Court seeking bail.
It was the case of the petitioners that several applications were filed by the principal accused with an intention to delay the conclusion of the trial, and in the meantime, more than one and half years passed since the petitioners were in custody with no charges being framed yet.
It was argued that this was a violation of their right to speedy trial and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21, even to the foreign nationals.
On the contrary, it was argued by the State that as per the provisions of Section 306(4), Cr.P.C, the approver was required to be in jail and shall not be released on bail, unless their statements were recorded or the trial was complete.
After hearing the contention, the Court agreed with the argument put forth by the State. Reference was also made to the larger bench decision of the Court in Noor Taki alias Mammu v State of Rajasthan that interpreted this provision and reached this conclusion. It was held that the approver should be detained until their statement was recorded.
In this background, the Court held that in the instant case too, the petitioners could not be granted bail till the time their statements were recorded. However, it was observed that the material aspect of them being in custody for 1.5 years could also not be ignored. Underscoring the right under Article 21, it was opined,
“Prolonged detention without trial can be a violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India.”
Accordingly, the trial court was directed to pass orders on charge/discharge by fixing a date for this purpose, within 4 weeks. Further, it was directed that if charges were framed against the petitioners, their statements must be recorded on priority basis.
Title: Nurul Islam & Anr. v Rajasthan Govt.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 396