Summary
The Court granted bail to a 74-year-old undertrial who had spent about nine and a half years in custody while the first prosecution witness’s cross-examination remained incomplete. The serious charges had to be balanced against prolonged incarceration and the unlikely timely completion of a trial involving many witnesses. Statutory bail restrictions did not extinguish constitutional protection of a speedy trial. The Court also directed attention to designation of more dedicated Special Courts and compliance with the statutory requirement for daily trial.
Issues
- Whether prolonged custody, advanced age and the trial’s limited progress justified bail despite the serious charges.
- Whether the pace of proceedings complied with the statutory priority for Special Court trials.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaProlonged undertrial detention without a realistic timely trial infringes the protection of personal liberty and speedy justice. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Section 19, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008Special Court trials must proceed on working days from day to day and take statutory precedence; monthly hearings defeated that purpose. (¶¶ 10, 16, 17, 19)
Held
- The appellant had been in custody since July 2012, was aged seventy-four, and faced a trial whose first witness was still under cross-examination. Even the prosecution’s proposed reduction from 298 listed witnesses to about 100–105 meant completion would take substantial time. The seriousness of the charges did not displace consideration of those circumstances. (¶¶ 5, 7, 8, 11, 18)
- Speedy trial forms part of constitutional liberty. Applying Najeeb, the Court held that statutory restrictions do not by themselves oust constitutional courts’ power to grant bail for violation of Part III. The appellant’s prolonged detention and trial prospects warranted release pending trial. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The Court directed West Bengal to take up designation of more dedicated Sessions Courts as Special Courts and called on the Central Government to address the issue in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. Hearings occurring only once a month frustrated the statutory mandate. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The appellant was to be produced before the trial court within three days and released on bail, with that court free to impose appropriate conditions securing his availability for trial. The order decided release pending trial, rather than guilt. (¶¶ 20, 21)
Result
Appeal allowed and High Court order set aside. Production before the trial court within three days and release on bail directed, subject to appropriate trial-court conditions; directions issued concerning additional dedicated Special Courts.