In a landmark judgment reinforcing constitutional protections for all individuals within its territory, the Rajasthan High Court has declared that foreign nationals facing trial in India are entitled to the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A Powerful Shield of Protection
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the case, emphatically stated that the right to life and personal liberty serves as a powerful shield of protection, extending its reach beyond national borders. This significant observation emerged during the hearing of a bail plea filed by two Bangladeshi nationals embroiled in an illegal organ transplantation case.
The accused individuals faced charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating), 471 (using forged documents), and 120B (criminal conspiracy). A crucial turning point in their legal journey was their decision to become approvers in the case, offering to testify for the prosecution.
The Legal Battle and Unjust Delay
Advocate K C Sharma, representing the two men, presented a compelling argument before the court. He revealed that while an FIR was initially registered concerning illegal kidney transplantation and human trafficking, leading to the arrest of the Bangladeshi nationals alongside local co-accused, a stark disparity emerged in their treatment.
All local co-accused had been granted bail, but the two foreign nationals remained in custody for over one-and-a-half years. The primary reason cited for their continued detention was their status as approvers. Sharma further informed the court that despite the filing of a chargesheet, charges had not been formally framed, and the statements of the accused had not been recorded, causing an undue delay in the judicial process.
The trial court had previously denied them bail, relying on the rider in Section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This provision mandates that an approver shall not be granted bail and should be detained in custody until the termination of the trial.
Contesting these arguments, the state's counsel, Rajesh Choudhary, contended that the two individuals had travelled from Bangladesh to Jaipur specifically to benefit from kidney transplantation. He insisted that the strict provisions of Section 306(4) required their detention until their statements were recorded or the trial concluded.
Court's Directive for a Speedy Trial
The High Court's findings were unequivocal. It held that the protection under Article 21 extends to all persons, not just Indian citizens. The court's order explicitly stated, "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."
Justice Dhand strongly criticized the trial court for the procedural delays, noting that it cannot defer the matter "from one day to another unnecessarily" by entertaining unwanted requests from any party, thereby causing an unnecessary delay in framing the charges.
Consequently, the High Court issued a firm directive to the trial court. It ordered that orders on charge or discharge must be passed, after hearing arguments, within four weeks. Furthermore, if charges are framed, the trial court was instructed to record the statements of the two foreign nationals on a priority basis.
In a significant relief, the High Court also granted the accused the liberty to approach it for bail after their statements are recorded before the trial court, paving a potential path for their release from prolonged custody.
