If Accused Is To Get Final Verdict After 6-7 Years In Jail As Undertrial, It Means Right To Speedy Trial Is Violated : Supreme Court

"Howsoever serious a crime may be, the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution," expressed the Supreme Court while granting bail to an accused charged under the UAPA who has been under custody for over five years.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan granted bail to the accused who was arrested by the Chhattisgarh Police on the allegations of carrying articles ordinarily used relating to the Naxalite Activities.

The accused has been under custody since 2020, and the prosecution intends to examine 100 witnesses of which 42 were examined.

Questioning the need to examine 100 witnesses of which the majority of the 42 witnesses have deposed similar testimonies, the Court noted that no purpose would be served if 100 witnesses were examined to establish one particular fact.

Relying on the case of Malak Khan vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 Privy Council 16], the Court said that “where the number of witnesses is large, it is not, in our opinion, necessary that everyone should be produced.”

Delayed Trials Hampers Overall Life Of Accused

The Court noted that an accused spending significant time in jail as an undertrial violates their right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, long trials cause significant stress, financial loss, and social stigma. Without compensation, acquitted individuals have to rebuild their lives after losing jobs, relationships, and legal expenses, the court said.

“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 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 also have lost a job or accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships while incarcerated, 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 stigmatized and perhaps even ostracized in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with their own resources.”

Judicial Delays Harm Accused, Victims, and Justice System

“We would say that delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently.”

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the Appeal, and set aside the impugned order of the High Court refusing to grant him bail.

Case Title: TAPAS KUMAR PALIT VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv. Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR