2025 (3) TMI 672 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - prolonged pretrial detention - right to speedy trial - HELD THAT - The trial is in progress. Till this date the prosecution has been able to examine 42 witnesses. The prosecution intends to examine as many as 100 witnesses. We are conscious of the Order passed by us taking the view that once the trial commences and the witnesses are being examined then in serious crimes like murder dacoity rape etc the Court ordinarily should not exercise its discretion for the purpose of grant of bail more particularly looking into the evidence which has come on record. However this is a case in which the appellant is in custody as an under trial prisoner since 24th March 2020. He has no other antecedents. The panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama have also turned hostile - It s been now 5 years that he is in judicial custody. The learned counsel appearing for the State has no idea as regards the time likely to be consumed to complete the recording of the oral evidence. The Special Judge should inquire with the Special Public Prosecutor why he intends to examine a particular witness if such witness is going to depose the very same thing that any other witness might have deposed earlier. We may sound as if laying some guidelines but time has come to consider this issue of delay and bail in its true and proper perspective. If an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner then definitely it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. The stress of long trials on accused persons who remain innocent until proven guilty can also be significant. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail forthwith subject to terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court. Conclusion - Howsoever serious a crime may be the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The appellant is granted release on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. Appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal issue considered by the Court was whether the appellant, who had been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for an extended period, should be granted bail. The Court also examined the implications of prolonged pretrial detention on the appellant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court considered the necessity and impact of examining a large number of witnesses on the trial's duration and the accused's rights.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The appellant was charged under multiple sections of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The legal framework regarding bail, especially in serious offenses, requires careful consideration of the evidence and the stage of the trial. The Court referenced the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, emphasizing that this right must be balanced against the seriousness of the charges.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges but emphasized the appellant's prolonged detention as an undertrial prisoner since March 2020. It noted that the trial was ongoing, with 42 out of an intended 100 witnesses examined, and highlighted the lack of clarity on when the trial would conclude. The Court stressed the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the potential prejudice caused by extended pretrial detention.

Key evidence and findings:

The Court noted that the panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama had turned hostile, which weakened the prosecution's case. The appellant had no prior criminal antecedents, and his prolonged detention without a foreseeable trial conclusion was a significant factor in the Court's decision.

Application of law to facts:

The Court applied the principles of the right to a speedy trial and the discretionary power of granting bail, considering the appellant's prolonged detention and the lack of substantial progress in the trial. The Court concluded that the appellant's continued detention was unjustified given the circumstances.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The Court acknowledged the State's concerns about the seriousness of the charges but found the indefinite delay in trial proceedings and the appellant's right to a speedy trial to outweigh these concerns. The Court criticized the prosecution's decision to examine an excessive number of witnesses, which contributed to the trial's delay.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that the appellant should be released on bail, subject to specific conditions, to uphold his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The decision underscored the need for efficient trial management and the careful exercise of prosecutorial discretion in witness examination.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that "howsoever serious a crime may be the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution." This principle was pivotal in the decision to grant bail, despite the serious nature of the charges.

The Court emphasized the role of the Public Prosecutor and the Special Judge in managing the trial efficiently, stating, "It is expected of the Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned." The Court highlighted the adverse effects of prolonged trials on both the accused and the justice system's credibility.

The Court ordered the appellant's release on bail, subject to conditions including restrictions on entering certain areas and requirements for online appearances at trial hearings. The Court made it clear that any breach of these conditions would result in automatic cancellation of bail.