Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court granted bail to the applicant under Section 439 of the CrPC, who had been incarcerated for over 6 years and 6 months in a murder case. The Court held that inordinate delay in trial and prolonged custody of undertrials violates Article 21 of the Constitution. It emphasized that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, especially when there is no foreseeable completion of the trial. Referring to the prevailing overcrowded prison conditions and systemic delays in the justice process, the Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail, highlighting the question: “How long is too long a period of incarceration as an undertrial for a Court to conclude that the right to speedy trial is defeated?”
Facts
- The applicant was arrested on 15.10.2018 in connection with the murder of his younger brother, with the mother being the complainant.
- The offence was registered under Section 302 IPC with Malwani Police Station.
- The applicant has remained in custody since the date of arrest, amounting to 6 years, 6 months, and 25 days.
- The trial had not commenced despite being listed for the production of witnesses for over six years.
Issues
- Whether the prolonged incarceration of over six years without commencement of trial violates the applicant’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution?
- Whether such long delay in trial entitles the applicant to bail despite the gravity of the offence?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The applicant has been in custody since October 2018 with no progress in the trial.
- The prolonged delay in the trial infringes the applicant’s right to speedy trial under Article 21.
- He is entitled to bail based on long incarceration and the settled legal position that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The learned APP opposed the application, but the judgment does not record any specific submissions suggesting imminent progress in trial or risk of the applicant absconding or tampering with evidence.
- The judgment reflects that the Court considered systemic issues like overcrowding in jails and delay in trials, which are within judicial notice.
Analysis of the Law
- The Court referred to Section 439 CrPC, which grants unfettered discretion to the High Court or Sessions Court to grant bail.
- It highlighted that discretion must be exercised judiciously, with primary considerations being the likelihood of the accused appearing for trial and not tampering with evidence or reoffending.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied heavily on landmark judgments including:
- Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson (AIR 1931 All 356): Held that discretion under Section 439 is unfettered and should be exercised judiciously.
- Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [(2022) 10 SCC 51]: Emphasized the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly in cases of undertrial prisoners.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248: Established that Article 21 includes the right to a fair and speedy trial.
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81: Stressed that delay in trial is a violation of Article 21.
- Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (Cr.A. 98/2021) and Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023): Reiterated that in cases of long incarceration, conditional liberty can override statutory restrictions.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court noted the Roznama of the trial court, which indicated that the case was stuck at the witness listing stage for over six years.
- Highlighted the overcrowded condition of Mumbai Central Prison, where each barrack meant for 50 inmates houses over 220–250 inmates.
- Held that liberty of undertrials under Article 21 must not be compromised due to systemic delays.
- Cited numerous constitutional decisions and academic literature emphasizing the mental, social, and economic toll of long-term undertrial incarceration.
- Queried: “How long is too long?”, holding that the present incarceration without a trial date violated Article 21.
Conclusion
The Court granted bail to the applicant while reiterating that long incarceration without trial defeats the constitutional right to a speedy trial. It underscored that even in serious offences like murder, prolonged pre-trial detention must be balanced against constitutional liberties.
Implications
- Reinforces the jurisprudence that long incarceration without trial can justify bail even in serious offences.
- Reiterates that courts must act as protectors, not post-mortem examiners, of constitutional rights.
- Emphasizes the need for judicial sensitivity to prison conditions, systemic delays, and the socio-economic status of undertrial prisoners.
- Urges trial courts to proceed diligently and governments to strengthen the justice delivery system to avoid constitutional violations.