Bail – Entitlement to – Delay in trial – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to speedy trial – Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 – Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 – Penal Code, 1860 – FIR against appellant under the aforesaid Acts – Trial in progress – Out of 100 witnesses, 42 witnesses examined – Bail denied by High Court – Challenge to: Held: Howsoever serious a crime may be, the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution – Appellant has been in custody as an under trial prisoner since March 2020 – He has no other antecedents – The panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama have also turned hostile – Out of 100 witnesses, only 42 witnesses have been examined – There is no certainty as regards the time likely to be consumed to complete the recording of the oral evidence – If an accused gets a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then his right to have a speedy trial u/Article 21 is infringed – Impugned order set aside – Appellant granted bail. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 10 , 14, 16]
Examination of the witnesses – Large number of witnesses, everyone need not be examined to establish one particular fact – Public Prosecutor to exercise discretion wisely: Held: Where the number of witnesses is large, it is not necessary that everyone should be produced – It results in indefinite delay in conclusion of trial – Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned – Role of the Special Judge (NIA), discussed. [Paras 13, 14] Long trials – Effect on accused – Discussed. [Para 14]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.