Undertrials cannot be detained for indefinite Period – Supreme Court
Decision Date 1 Dec.2021
Apex Court observed that Court must weigh the nature of the crime for which the appellant is being tried. At the same time, the length of incarceration endured and the likely time frame in which the trial can be expected to be completed.
Six accused were arrested in FIR No. 138/2012 dated 1st March 2012, under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122 of the IPC, Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Later, the National Investigation Agency took over the investigation. The said case was reregistered as RC No. 01/2012/NIA/DLI at PS NIA Headquarters, New Delhi for offences under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122 IPC, Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act 1959, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 18,20,40(1)(b)(c) of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967(hereinafter being referred to as “UAP Act”) on 12th April, 2012.
After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against, and it has come on record that there are 298 prosecution witnesses only 100 to 105 prosecution witnesses. appellant is in custody since 6th July 2012 and has completed nine and half years of incarceration as an undertrial prisoner.
Apex Court observed that the liberty guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution encompasses not only due procedure and fairness, but also access to justice, and that a speedy trial is required, and that undertrials cannot be detained indefinitely pending trial. Bail Allowed by the Apex Court.
ASHIM @ ASIM KUMAR HARANATH
BHATTACHARYA @ ASIM HARINATH
BHATTACHARYA @ ASEEM KUMAR BHATTACHARYA …. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY …. RESPONDENT(S)
Supreme Court Reportable Judgements
Lawyer E Office Management Software Click Here
