NEW DELHI: Noting that an accused has a fundamental right to speedy trial, irrespective of the seriousness of his offence, Supreme Court has held that keeping an undertrial prisoner in jail for six to seven years without verdict amounted to violation of his rights and bail could be granted to him. It released an accused, who is being prosecuted under anti-terror law UAPA, on bail as he had been in custody for the last five years.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan also questioned the tendency of prosecuting agencies to examine a large number of witnesses during trial which resulted in delay. It said the time has come to consider the issue of delay and bail in its true and proper perspective to also protect the interest of an accused who suffers a lot and is not even compensated financially if acquitted after long incarceration.
“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 bench said.
It said, “The stress of long trials on accused persons – who remain innocent until proven guilty – can also be significant. Accused persons are not financially compensated for what might be a lengthy period of pretrial incarceration. They may have lost a job or accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships and spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees. If an accused person is found not guilty, they have likely endured many months of being stigmatised and perhaps even ostracised in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with their own resources.”
In this case, the accused was arrested in March 2020 in Chhattisgarh while carrying articles generally used in naxalite activities – walkie talkie, LED lense etc. The prosecution intended to examine as many as 100 witnesses in the case but only 42 have been examined in five years.
Though the bench said the court ordinarily should not exercise its discretion for the purpose of grant of bail in serious offences, it, however, stated that bail could be granted in view of violation of rights of an accused due to inordinate delay.
“It’s been now five 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. We are left with no other option but to order release of the appellant on bail,” the bench said.
