Supreme Court Grants Bail to Undertrial Accused under UAPA After Five Years of Custody, Cites Violation of Article 21’s Right to Speedy Trial and Criticizes Prolonged Delays in Such Cases

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had earlier refused bail. The Court highlighted that the prolonged incarceration of the appellant, coupled with the slow pace of trial, violated the fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court ordered the appellant’s release on bail subject to specific conditions, including restrictions on his movement and mandatory online appearances for hearings.

Facts of the Case:

1. The appellant was arrested on March 24, 2020, while traveling in a vehicle carrying items allegedly linked to Naxalite activities.
2. The police intercepted the vehicle and recovered the following items:
   • 95 pairs of shoes.
   • Green-black printed cloth.
   • Two bundles of electric wire (each 100 meters long).
   • LED lenses.
   • Walkie-talkies and other materials.
3. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered under:
   • Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
   • Sections 8(2), (3), and (5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005.
   • Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 149 (unlawful assembly) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
4. The appellant has been in judicial custody since the day of his arrest, with no prior criminal antecedents.
5. A chargesheet was filed, and the trial commenced. Out of the 100 prosecution witnesses, 42 have been examined so far. Several panch witnesses have turned hostile.

Issues:

1. Whether the prolonged detention of the appellant as an undertrial, with no foreseeable conclusion of the trial, violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the prosecution’s decision to examine 100 witnesses contributes to unnecessary delays in the trial.
3. Whether the appellant should be granted bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offenses under UAPA.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The appellant argued that his prolonged detention as an undertrial prisoner for over five years constitutes a violation of his fundamental right to a speedy trial.
2. The petitioner pointed out that several panch witnesses have already turned hostile, weakening the prosecution’s case.
3. He also argued that the trial’s indefinite delay, due to the prosecution’s decision to examine 100 witnesses, justifies his release on bail.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The State opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations under UAPA and the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005.
2. The prosecution asserted that examining all 100 witnesses is necessary for a fair and complete trial.
3. The State argued that releasing the appellant on bail could impede the trial or pose a threat to public safety.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Prolonged incarceration as an undertrial without significant progress in the trial violates this right.
2. Prosecution’s Discretion in Witness Examination: The Court noted that while it is within the prosecution’s discretion to decide the number of witnesses, examining an excessive number of witnesses unnecessarily prolongs the trial. It cited Malak Khan v. Emperor (AIR 1946 Privy Council 16) to emphasize that not all witnesses need to be examined to prove a fact.
3. Impact of Delayed Trials: The Court observed that prolonged trials harm not just the accused but also the victims, society, and the credibility of the justice system. It highlighted the social, financial, and psychological repercussions of long periods of pre-trial incarceration.
4. Balancing Seriousness of Crime and Rights of the Accused: While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations under UAPA, the Court reiterated that the rights of the accused, including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be protected.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court relied on Malak Khan v. Emperor (AIR 1946 Privy Council 16) to underline that the prosecution is not obligated to call every possible witness to prove its case. The judgment underscores the need for efficient management of trials to avoid unnecessary delays.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The appellant has been in custody for over five years, and the prosecution has only examined 42 out of 100 witnesses. The delay in the trial is indefinite, with no clear timeline for its conclusion.
2. The Court criticized the prosecution’s decision to examine 100 witnesses, observing that examining multiple witnesses to prove the same fact serves no useful purpose and contributes to delays.
3. It emphasized the role of trial judges in ensuring that trials are conducted expeditiously and efficiently, using the tools available under the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. The Court stressed the adverse consequences of long pre-trial incarceration, including financial loss, damage to personal relationships, and stigmatization in society.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and granted bail to the appellant, subject to the following conditions:

1. The appellant shall not enter the district of Kanker, Chhattisgarh, except for recording his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC.
2. He must attend all hearings online and comply with conditions imposed by the trial court.
3. Any breach of these conditions will result in the automatic cancellation of bail.

Implications:

1. The judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. It calls for greater accountability and discretion from prosecutors in deciding the number of witnesses to be examined, to prevent unnecessary delays in trials.
3. The decision highlights the need for systemic reforms to address delays in the criminal justice system, ensuring that the rights of both accused persons and victims are upheld.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Quashes DGFT’s Show Cause Notice Against Essar Shipping: “Reopening Settled Claims Violates Res Judicata and Upholds Finality of Division Bench Judgment”