Detention Of Accused For More Than 6 Years As 'Undertrial' Is Infringement Of Right To Speedy Trial: Orissa High Court

While granting bail to a person accused of duping gullible investors of crores of rupees, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –

“True it is that what extent of time would be considered as an infringement of right to speedy trial has not been defined in any statute, but by any standard, the detention of the Petitioner in custody for around more than 6 and ½ years as has been found in this case is considered to be infringement of right to speedy trial as guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Case Background

The petitioner is accused of operating illegal money circulation business through different companies along with other accused persons alluring depositors to invest money on the assurance of getting high return and in the process, cheating the gullible depositors.

He was charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B/420/409 of IPC read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act for duping Rs. 31,13,938,19/- in 485 Branches from different gullible depositors. He was taken into custody on 25.08.2018. Thus, he filed this petition seeking grant of bail.

Court's Observations

The Court perused the status report of the trial Court submitted in another bail petition in connection with the same case. The report indicated that only 11 witnesses have been examined and 166 more witnesses are in the fray to be examined. Hence, the Court deemed it appropriate to hold that the conclusion of trial shall take 'considerable period of time'.

The Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI objected to the bail plea citing huge amount of money that has been misappropriated by the petitioner. However, the Court discarded such contention holding that no one can be denied the right to speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21, howsoever serious a crime may be inasmuch as a person accused of committing heinous crime is also entitled to basic protection of law.

Justice Satapathy further held that though it is true that what extent of time would be considered as an infringement of right to speedy trial has not been defined in any statute, but detention for more than 6 and ½ years can be considered to be infringement of right to speedy trial under Article 21. In this context, reference was made to a recent decision in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 211, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows –

“If an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an under trial 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.”

When inquired about criminal antecedent(s) of the petitioner, the counsel appearing for the CBI cited lack of instruction. The Court held that when the petitioner has been incarcerated due to the action taken by the CBI, it has to take the blame for considerable delay in examination of the prosecution witnesses.

“…no one will appreciate by confining a person accused of offence without assuring him to speedy trial which is his fundamental right and a person cannot be kept confined in jail custody for indefinite period on the expectation that one or other day the trial would be concluded which is not the objective of right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” it said.

Therefore, taking into account the period of custody, lack of information regarding criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the prospective period for conclusion of trial, the Court deemed it apposite to grant bail to the petitioner on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount along with other conditions.

“It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out,” it added.

Case Title: Dilip Ranjan Nath v. Republic of India (CBI)

Case No: BLAPL No. 12707 of 2023

Date of Order: February 18, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.C. Mahapatra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Advocate

Counsel for the CBI: Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Special Public Prosecutor, CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 28

Click Here To Read/Download The Order