Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court

On September 6, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Mumtaj alias Monu, accused of attempted murder and grievous injury, in a case where the trial had been delayed for over two and a half years. The court emphasized the importance of the right to a speedy trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, and ruled that prolonged detention without progress in trial warrants the grant of bail.

Mumtaj alias Monu was arrested in connection with FIR No. 109, registered on February 28, 2022, at Police Station City Panipat, Haryana. The charges against him included Sections 324, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly stabbing the victim, Sunil, with a knife over an unpaid debt of Rs. 11,000. The incident occurred near the Panipat bus stand, where the accused allegedly attacked Sunil, causing serious chest injuries.

Since his arrest, the trial had made little progress. Despite being in custody for over two years, none of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined by the court.

The main issue before the court was whether prolonged detention of the accused without any progress in trial justified the grant of bail, particularly when the accused was facing serious charges under Sections 307 (attempted murder) and 324 (causing grievous hurt). The petitioner also faced allegations of being a habitual offender, as he was involved in four other cases.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while hearing the bail plea, considered the prolonged period of incarceration and the lack of progress in the trial as key factors in deciding the petition. The court relied on the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018).

The court stressed that keeping an accused in custody indefinitely without trial violates their fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The court cited the precedent set in Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1980), which held that the right to a speedy trial is integral to the protection of personal liberty.

Right to Speedy Trial: The court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and any unreasonable delay in the trial process cannot be justified, particularly when the accused has already spent over two years in custody without any progress in the case.

Prolonged Custody Without Trial: The court noted that despite the filing of the chargesheet in July 2022 and framing of charges in August 2022, none of the prosecution witnesses had been examined. This inordinate delay made it unreasonable to detain the accused further.

Past Criminal Record: The State's contention that the accused was a habitual offender with other cases pending against him was acknowledged. However, the court cited a ruling from the same court in Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab (2023), which held that criminal antecedents should not automatically disqualify an accused from bail, as each case should be judged on its own merits.

The High Court granted regular bail to Mumtaj alias Monu, underscoring the importance of the right to a speedy trial. The decision reflects the court's adherence to the principles of fairness and justice, particularly when an accused is detained for an extended period without meaningful progress in the trial.

Date of Decision: September 6, 2024

Mumtaj alias Monu vs. State of Haryana