Summary
The Supreme Court granted bail to an undertrial accused under the UAPA who had been in custody for about five years, holding that however serious the alleged offence, prolonged incarceration while the trial drags on infringes the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. It also observed that prosecutors should not multiply witnesses on the same fact and that the Special Judge should question the need for repetitive witnesses.
Issues
- Whether an accused facing charges under the UAPA and allied laws, in custody since March 2020 with the trial still at the stage of prosecution evidence, should be released on bail.
- Whether the prosecution's intention to examine about 100 witnesses, causing indefinite delay, bears on the accused's right to a speedy trial.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaThe Court held that the accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 holds however serious the crime, and that a final verdict after six to seven years of incarceration as an undertrial would infringe that right; this weighed decisively in favour of bail. (¶¶ 10, 14)
- Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967These were the offences in the FIR along with provisions of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and the IPC; the Court did not construe them but granted bail on the ground of long custody and delay in trial. (¶ 2)
Held
- Although the Court ordinarily should not grant bail in serious crimes once the trial has begun and witnesses are being examined, bail was warranted here because the appellant had been in custody for five years as an undertrial, had no other antecedents, the panch witnesses to the recovery had turned hostile, and the State could not say how long the remaining evidence would take. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9)
- However serious the alleged crime, an accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21; if an undertrial obtains a verdict only after six to seven years in jail, that right can be said to have been infringed. (¶¶ 10, 14)
- The Public Prosecutor, though in charge of the trial and entitled to decide whom to examine, must exercise that discretion wisely; where witnesses are many, not every one need be produced, and examining several witnesses to prove one fact serves no useful purpose and causes delay. Malak Khan v. Emperor (Privy Council) was relied on. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The Special Judge (NIA) should ask the Special Public Prosecutor why a witness is to be examined if that witness will only repeat what others have already deposed; judges control their courtrooms and the Code of Criminal Procedure gives them tools to keep cases moving, since delay harms the accused, victims and the credibility of the justice system. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; appellant released on bail on terms to be fixed by the trial court, with directions that he not enter district Kanker except to appear personally for his statement under Section 313 CrPC, and appear online on other hearing dates; any breach to result in automatic cancellation of bail.