Denial Of Speedy Trial Infringes Fundamental Right Under Article 21, May Be A Ground For Grant Of Bail: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that speedy trial form an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution and the denial of same may be a ground for bail in certain circumstances.

The single judge bench comprising Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that denial of bail without any possibility of the trial concluding anytime soon would cause an infringement of the accused person's right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since the case was instituted under the NDPS Act, the court also recorded satisfaction regarding twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the Act. 

Briefly, the facts of the case are that an application was filed seeking release of an accused under the NDPS Act on regular bail till final disposal of the case registered by the CBI.

The applicant had been in judicial custody since 2016 and as per the application, she was covered by the Supreme Court judgement of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing undertrial prisoners) vs. Union of India which held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial.

The Applicant's counsel submitted that in terms of this judgment where an undertrial prisoner is charged with an offence under the Act with minimum imprisonment of 10 years and minimum fine of 1 lakh, such an undertrial prisoner may be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than 5 years subject to conditions prescribed in the said judgment

The CBI argued that the said observations were only a "one time measure" passed in peculiar circumstances of that case and thus, it would not be applicable in the case of the Applicant.

While analysing the judgement, the High Court opined that the Supreme Court's direction was not a one-time measure but was meant to apply as one-time measure in all cases where the undertrials were in jail and the conclusion of their trial was nowhere in sight.

High Court further noted that the Supreme Court had made it clear that its observations were not intended to interfere with Special Courts power to grant bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This means that the Special Courts under Section 37 can grant bail and are at liberty to grant bail even prior to having undergone half of the minimum sentence. Further, the Special Courts are always free to cancel the bail if the accused is found to be misusing the liberty of bail.

The court noted that no prisoner should be denied their life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India especially when speedy trial cannot be guaranteed and there is no end in sight for the trial.

"It, therefore, is clear that speedy trial forms an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution and the denial of same may be a ground for bail in certain circumstances/conditions."

While discussing the merits of the case, the court stated that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was not guilty of the offence. Further, the court added that the applicant was not likely to commit an offence under the NDPS Act while on bail. Thus, the accused crossed the hurdle of the stringent twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of NDPS act.

It was further noted that whether she was guilty or not needed to be decided in the trial, where the intricacies of the alleged crime were to be delved into deeper by the trial court and the guilt or liability, if any, could be decided after the trial.

However, the court opined that if bail was denied without any possibility of the trial concluding anytime soon, it would be infringing upon her right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Thus, noting that the applicant had undergone half of the minimum 10 years prescribed in the NDPS Act, the Court directed to enlarge her on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties.

CASE TITLE: GURMITO v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 745

Click Here To Read Order