'Incorrect' : Supreme Court Criticises HC Order Limiting Bail Of Undertrial To 2 Months When He Has Been Under Custody Since 2022
Anmol Kaur Bawa
3 July 2024 4:56 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 2) reiterated the settled legal position that an accused's right to speedy trial is a fundamental right and closely connected to the right to life and personal liberty. The Court deprecated the order of the High Court which overlooked the said principle and released the petitioner on bail for merely two months when the trial would take a long time to conclude.
The court was hearing a challenge to a bail order granted by the Orissa High Court. As per the impugned order, petitioner was released on bail for only two months despite noting that he was in custody since May 11, 2022 and only one witness had been examined so far. The charges Imposed on the petitioner were for the offense of contravention in relation to cannabis under S. 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.
The vacation bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan granted bail to the petitioner while observing that the High Court erred in limiting the petitioner's bail period to only two months. This, the bench noted, was in violation of the petitioner's right to speedy trial.
“In our opinion, it is an incorrect order. If the High Court was of the view that the right of the petitioner to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed, then the High Court should have ordered release of the petitioner on bail pending final disposal of the trial itself. There was no good reason for the High Court to limit the period of bail.”
Placing reliance on the settled principle of law in the landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the bench issued notice in the SLP.
“It is now well settled that the right to a speedy trial is recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and is closely tied to the right to life and personal liberty, as held by this Court in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna [1979 (3) SCR 532].
In view of the aforesaid, issue notice.
We direct that the petitioner shall continue to remain on bail pending further.”
Advocate Shyam Manohar represented the petitioner.
Case Details : KISHOR KARMAKAR V. THE STATE OF ODISHA Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8263/2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 436
