The Bombay High Court has strongly reiterated that bail must be treated as the norm and denial as the exception, observing that detaining an undertrial prisoner for an extended period without trial constitutes “pre-trial punishment.”
A single-judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav made the observation on May 9 while granting bail to Vikas Patil, who had been arrested for allegedly murdering his brother in 2018 and had remained in custody for over six years without trial.
Justice Jadhav, while considering the application, highlighted the severe overcrowding of prisons in Maharashtra and the constitutional concerns surrounding prolonged pre-trial detention. The bench referred to a December 2024 report from the superintendent of Arthur Road Jail, which revealed that the prison was housing more than six times its sanctioned capacity. As per the report, barracks designed for 50 inmates were accommodating between 220 and 250 prisoners.
“This incongruity compels courts to seek a balance between the liberty of undertrial prisoners and the functioning of the justice system,” Justice Jadhav observed.
The court also addressed the widespread delays in concluding criminal trials, noting that the slow pace of trials effectively results in the unconstitutional deprivation of personal liberty and the denial of the right to a speedy trial.
Justice Jadhav cited an article titled “Proof of Guilt”, written by two undertrial prisoners, which questioned the justice system’s tolerance for long pre-trial detentions. The court agreed that while prolonged incarceration cannot automatically guarantee bail, it is a critical factor when evaluating a bail plea, especially in light of the constitutional guarantee of speedy justice.
“The paradox raised in the article—how long is too long before the right to a speedy trial is defeated—remains relevant and without a singular answer,” Justice Jadhav noted.
The judge also criticized the prosecution’s routine opposition to bail in serious offences, describing it as a “mistaken impression” that seriousness of crime alone justifies prolonged detention.
“The overarching postulate of criminal jurisprudence—that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty—cannot be brushed aside, however stringent the law may be,” the bench asserted.
In Patil’s case, the court noted the absence of any imminent possibility of the trial commencing or concluding and deemed the prolonged incarceration as amounting to “surrogate punishment” without due process.
