In a significant judgment reinforcing the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the Allahabad High Court, led by Justice Krishan Pahal, granted bail to Sarvajeet Singh, who had been languishing in custody for over seven years due to inordinate delays in his trial. The court observed that such prolonged incarceration without progress in trial constituted a blatant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
This ruling not only underscores the importance of expeditious judicial proceedings but also reiterates the principle that bail should not be withheld as a punitive measure, especially in cases where trials are unduly delayed.
Background of the Case
The bail application, Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 41474 of 2024, was filed by Sarvajeet Singh in connection with Sessions Trial No. 480 of 2017, arising from Case Crime No. 156 of 2017. The case involved charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Jhangaha Police Station in Gorakhpur.
Singh was accused of fatally shooting the deceased and had been in custody since May 23, 2017. The trial faced numerous delays due to procedural challenges, including the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and subsequent interventions by the Supreme Court, which led to a prolonged stay on proceedings. The trial had effectively stalled since October 25, 2019, and the prosecution still needed to examine a significant number of witnesses.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Right to Speedy Trial: The applicant invoked his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, arguing that his prolonged incarceration without substantive progress in the trial violated his constitutional rights.
2. Presumption of Innocence: The court reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that prolonged pretrial detention undermines this foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence.
3. Judicial Principles on Bail: Drawing upon precedents from the Supreme Court, the judgment highlighted that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Instead, it is granted to ensure the accused’s presence at trial, barring circumstances where there is a risk of evidence tampering or flight.
Court’s Observations
Justice Krishan Pahal, in his detailed judgment, noted:
– “It is deeply regrettable that the applicant has been languishing in jail for approximately seven years and nine months, with the trial having remained stagnant since 25.10.2019. Such prolonged incarceration is a serious infringement on the applicant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial.”
– Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the court observed, “Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to a speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.”
– The court further stated, “If the State or any prosecuting agency has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then it should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.”
The court concluded that the delays were systemic and not attributable to the accused, thereby strengthening his case for bail.
Key Precedents Referenced
Justice Pahal cited several landmark Supreme Court rulings to reinforce the principles of granting bail in cases of prolonged incarceration:
– Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980): Declared that a speedy trial is an essential part of Article 21.
– Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022): Emphasized that stringent provisions of special laws cannot outweigh constitutional rights if trials are delayed.
– Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023): Highlighted the dangers of prolonged pretrial incarceration, including prison overcrowding and societal alienation of the accused.
Court’s Decision
Taking into account the applicant’s prolonged incarceration, the lack of progress in the trial, and the absence of any evidence suggesting that the applicant might tamper with evidence or abscond, the court granted bail. The order was subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must furnish a personal bond and two sureties.
2. The applicant must not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
3. The applicant must appear before the trial court on designated dates.
