The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Raziuddin Nashar, an accused in the 2013 Sabarmati Jailbreak case. The decision was made by a bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, taking into consideration the prolonged delay in commencing the trial, during which Nashar had been incarcerated for 11 years.

Nashar had been in custody since 2008 in connection with the 2008 Ahmedabad Blasts. Despite being acquitted in a related case, he continued to languish in prison due to the lack of progress in the trial for the Sabarmati Jailbreak case. This legal ordeal began in 2013 when Nashar, already in jail for the Ahmedabad Blasts, was implicated in the jailbreak incident.

The petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Dr. S Muralidhar, along with advocates Shariq Nisar and Anas Tanwir, argued the case before the Supreme Court. The defense highlighted the prolonged period of incarceration without a trial and the subsequent acquittal in the Ahmedabad Blasts case, emphasizing the lack of progress in the Sabarmati Jailbreak trial.

The State of Gujarat was represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Standing Counsel Swati Ghildiyal. The prosecution had reportedly cited 169 witnesses in the jailbreak case. The Supreme Court took note of the extensive delay in commencing the trial, which had not even begun after a decade, making it challenging to predict a reasonable time frame for its conclusion.

The apex court's decision to grant bail underscores the importance of timely and efficient legal proceedings. The justices considered the fundamental right to a speedy trial, ensuring that individuals are not unduly deprived of their liberty without due process. The fact that Nashar had spent over a decade in jail without a trial played a crucial role in the court's decision to grant bail.

While Nashar's acquittal in the Ahmedabad Blasts case earlier in February 2022 marked a significant legal victory for him, the ordeal continued due to his involvement in the Sabarmati Jailbreak case. The Supreme Court's intervention serves as a reminder of the need for expeditious legal proceedings to safeguard the rights and liberties of individuals accused of crimes.

Case: Raziuddin Nashar vs State of Gujarat.