2008 Delhi blasts: Delhi High Court grants bail to accused who spent 12 years in custody

Courts mustn’t play coroners but doctors and save rights before they are “extinguished”, the Delhi High Court said on Wednesday while granting bail to a man who spent over 12 years in custody in connection with the 2008 Delhi serial blasts case [Mohd Hakim v. State]..Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani allowed bail to Mohd Hakim acting on his appeal.“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,” the Court said.The bail order also underlined that courts should pro-actively step in to protect such rights from being stifled and buried.“If equity calls upon affected persons to be vigilant to protect their rights, then surely the courts must also be vigilant, and, to quote the Supreme Court, act as sentinels on the qui vive when it comes to protecting constitutional and legal rights,” it added.The bail was sought on the ground that though there were 16 accused persons named in the chargesheet, the only a limited role - carrying a certain quantity of cycle ball-bearings from Lucknow to Delhi allegedly used for preparing Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) - was ascribed to Hakim..He was also stated to be a university student without any criminal antecedents at the time of the incident.The State opposed the grant of bail on ground that the about 26 people were killed whereas 135 suffered injuries, and the responsibility for the serial blasts was taken by a terrorist outfit called Indian Mujahideen.It was also pointed out that the steel ball-bearings were recovered along with other incriminating material from Batla House premises during a search operation.“That the involvement of the appellant, Mohd. Hakim, in the serial blasts was disclosed for the first time by another arrested accused, Zeeshan Ahmad alias Anda in his disclosure statement dated 03.10.2008. As a consequence of which the appellant was arrested some three months later by the AntiTerrorist Squad (ATS)/Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh whereupon the appellant disclosed his involvement in the serial bomb blasts…” submitted the State.The Bench, however, observed that the appellant had spent over 12 years in custody as an undertrial. Besides 256 witnesses had been examined in the last 12 years but 60 prosecution witnesses were yet 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,” it stated.It also came on record, as noted by the Court, that the State planned to seek capital sentence for the appellant and it was, therefore, all the more necessary that he be allowed a speedy trial and failing which, he deserved “at least to be given back his liberty after more than 12 long years of imprisonment as an undertrial”. "Since it cannot be ignored that as of now, the appellant has undergone punishment for more than a decade of his life, for an alleged offence for which he has not yet been found guilty,” the order added.Thus, his right to speedy trial would continue to be violated if he is not released on bail, the Court said.“In our opinion, the appellant has made-out a case that his right to speedy trial is being defeated and would continue to be violated if he is not enlarged on bail, having already spent more than 12 years in custody as an undertrial,” the Court held."We may also observe that the record of this appeal shows that the appellant was enrolled in a B.Tech. (Biotechnology) degree course at the Integral University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (an institution established under U.P. State legislation and approved by the University Grants Commission) in the 2008-2009 sessions, i.e., about the time that the offence is alleged to have been committed," it noted.Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, along with advocates Warisha Farasat, Vinoothna Vinjam and Shourya Dasgupta represented Hakim. Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Chadha argued for the State. [Read Order]