13 Years, 7 Months, and 11 Days of Incarceration Without Conclusion of Trial Violates Article 21: Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Two Undertrials in Murder Case

02 April 2025 3:17 PM

By: Deepak Kumar

Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception — Courts Cannot Perpetually Detain Undertrials in the Name of Trial — Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) delivered a crucial ruling where Justice Milind N. Jadhav granted bail to two undertrials who had spent more than 13 years and 7 months in custody without the conclusion of their trial. The Court observed that the prolonged incarceration amounted to a violation of the applicants' fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, stating emphatically, "If the prosecution cannot prosecute and complete the trial in such a long period of time especially in view of the stage of trial in the present case there is no reason for the Constitutional Court to believe the word of the prosecution."
The applicants were accused in a case registered under multiple serious sections including
Sections 302, 364, 395, 120-B of the IPC arising out of Crime No.129/2011 registered at Kurar
Police Station, Mumbai, relating to a heinous crime that occurred on 5th June 2011. Applicant No.1 was arrested on 9th August 2011 and Applicant No.2 on 17th August 2011. Despite the seriousness of the crime, the applicants remained undertrial prisoners for over 13 years due to continuous delays, interim applications, and stays on the trial.
Significantly, eight other co-accused had already been enlarged on bail by orders passed post the rejection of the applicants' SLP by the Supreme Court on 2nd January 2024, which had earlier upheld the Bombay High Court's refusal to grant bail.
The Court noted that mere gravity of the offence cannot justify endless incarceration. The Court remarked:
"13 years 7 months and 11 days is too long a period with the present status of trial in this case. If the prosecution cannot prosecute and complete the trial in such a long period of time especially in view of the stage of trial in the present case there is no reason for the Constitutional Court to believe the word of the prosecution that trial would be completed in the near foreseeable future, thus, prolonging the agony of the undertrial accused persons forever."

The Court stressed that delays in the trial cannot be indefinitely used to deny liberty: "Trial gets protracted or prolonged due to various reasons and sometimes what the Court finds is that though genuine endeavor is made by the prosecution, despite that delay occurs. Therefore, incarceration of the Applicants for more than 13 years 7 months and 11 days when viewed from the point of view of pre-trial punishment and conviction impels me to consider the Application of the Applicants."
Quoting Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the Court reaffirmed that: "Speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21."
The Court warned that continued custody without foreseeable completion of trial amounts to pre-trial punishment contrary to the constitutional guarantee of liberty.
Relying on Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, the Court reiterated: "The principle to be deduced from the various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody."
Further emphasizing, the Court added: "It is for all these reasons the Applicants will have to stay in jail for a further indefinite period and therefore on this ground Applicants' right to speedy justice envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution gets prima facie violated."
The Court also took note of parity since similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail. Furthermore, it acknowledged the health condition of Applicant No.2 who is suffering from HIV, invoking Section 34(2) of the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017, which mandates priority disposal in cases involving HIV-positive persons.
While granting bail, Justice Jadhav concluded: "If under-trials who have been incarcerated for over 13 years are to continue in jail due to the State's inability to complete the trial, it would be nothing short of subjecting them to a pre-trial conviction without trial. This would be a flagrant violation of their right under Article 21."
The Court released both applicants on bail with conditions to ensure their attendance during trial and prevent any interference with witnesses.
This judgment is a strong reiteration of the constitutional guarantee that undertrials cannot be punished through indefinite detention due to systemic delays. The Bombay High Court reminded all concerned that: "Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. The Court must balance the need for fair prosecution with the accused's right to liberty and speedy justice."
The case underlines the fundamental principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, even in heinous crimes, when prolonged delay threatens constitutional rights.