In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has underscored the fundamental right of an accused to a speedy trial, criticizing the Orissa High Court for limiting the bail period of an undertrial prisoner to just two months. The apex court’s decision came in the case of Kishor Karmakar v. The State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8263/2024).
Background of the Case
Kishor Karmakar, the petitioner, has been in custody since May 11, 2022, facing charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for contravention in relation to cannabis. Despite being in custody for over two years, only one witness had been examined in the trial, prompting Karmakar to seek bail from the Orissa High Court.
High Court’s Order
On May 6, 2024, the Orissa High Court granted Karmakar bail but limited the duration to two months. This decision was based on the prolonged custody and the slow pace of the trial. However, the High Court’s order was challenged in the Supreme Court, leading to the current proceedings.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s order to be incorrect, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, closely tied to the right to life and personal liberty. The bench referenced the landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [1979 (3) SCR 532], which established the principle of speedy trial as a fundamental right.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court:
– “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.”
– “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.”
Also Read
Legal Representation and Court’s Directive
Advocate Shyam Manohar represented the petitioner, while the respondent, the State of Odisha, was also present. Despite the absence of the petitioner’s counsel during the hearing, the Supreme Court issued a notice and directed that Karmakar shall continue to remain on bail pending further orders by the Court.
