In a scathing critique of prolonged undertrial detention, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that keeping an accused incarcerated for six to seven years without a final verdict violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Delivering judgment in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2025), a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan granted bail to an undertrial who had already spent five years in judicial custody. The court questioned the prosecution’s delay in concluding the trial and the necessity of examining 100 witnesses while strongly reiterating that the justice system must uphold individual liberties even in serious cases.
Case Background
The case originated from an FIR (No. 9/2020) registered on March 24, 2020, under multiple stringent laws, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
The appellant, Tapas Kumar Palit, was arrested after police intercepted a vehicle (CG-07/AH-6555) allegedly transporting materials linked to Naxalite activities. Recovered items included:
– 95 pairs of shoes
– Green-black printed cloth
– Two bundles of electric wire (100 meters each)
– LED lens
– Walkie-talkie and other items
Despite the passage of five years, the trial remained incomplete, with 42 witnesses examined and the prosecution intending to examine a total of 100 witnesses. The High Court of Chhattisgarh had earlier denied bail, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
1. Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right (Article 21)
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to a speedy trial is a constitutionally guaranteed right under Article 21, stating:
“However serious a crime may be, the accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The court emphasized that justice delayed is justice denied, and excessive delays in trial violate personal liberty and undermine faith in the justice system.
2. Prolonged Undertrial Detention is Unjustified
The court strongly criticized the prolonged detention of the accused without a final verdict, stating:
“If an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed.”
The court further noted the irreparable harm caused to undertrials, observing:
“The stress of long trials on accused persons—who remain innocent until proven guilty—can be significant. Accused persons are not financially compensated for what might be a lengthy period of pre-trial incarceration. They may also have lost a job or accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships while incarcerated, and spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees.”
The court acknowledged that even if an accused is later found not guilty, they suffer immense personal and social consequences, stating:
“If an accused person is found not guilty, they have likely endured many months of being stigmatized and perhaps even ostracized in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with their own resources.”
3. Questioning the Need for 100 Witnesses
Expressing concern over the delay in the trial process, the Supreme Court questioned the prosecution’s decision to examine 100 witnesses. The judgment pointed out:
“No useful purpose would be served if 10 witnesses are examined to establish one particular fact.”
The bench advised the Public Prosecutor to exercise discretion in calling witnesses and to avoid unnecessary prolongation of trials. The court referred to the Privy Council ruling in Malak Khan v. Emperor (AIR 1946 PC 16), which stated:
“There is no obligation compelling counsel for the prosecution to call all witnesses who speak to facts which the Crown desires to prove. The prosecution must wisely exercise discretion to ensure efficiency in trial.”
The bench directed the Special Judge (NIA) to intervene if unnecessary witnesses were being examined, stating:
“The Special Judge should inquire with the Special Public Prosecutor why he intends to examine a particular witness if such witness is going to depose the very same thing that any other witness might have deposed earlier.”
The court emphasized that delays in prosecution harm both the accused and the victims, stating:
“Delays are bad for the accused, extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society, and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued.”
Court’s Final Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court granted bail to Tapas Kumar Palit, subject to the following conditions:
Palit shall not enter District Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
He must appear online for each trial hearing.
His personal presence will be required only for final statements under Section 313 CrPC.
Any breach of bail conditions will result in automatic cancellation of bail.
The Supreme Court reversed the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision and directed the trial court to ensure a swift conclusion of the case.
