Incarceration Without Framing of Charges for Three Years Is a Travesty of Justice: Supreme Court Grants Bail

"Delay in Trial Cannot Override the Right to Liberty" – Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling, granting bail to the former West Bengal Minister after nearly three years of pre-trial incarceration. The bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that continued detention without even the framing of charges or examination of witnesses "violates principles of justice".

Rejecting the Calcutta High Court’s earlier refusal of bail, the apex court invoked the fundamental rights of an accused to fair trial and liberty, observing that "continuing incarceration would amount to a travesty of justice."

The appellant, Partha Chatterjee, was arrested in connection with a massive corruption and criminal conspiracy case, involving alleged offences under Sections 120B, 201, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Despite the investigation having been completed and the charge sheet filed, the charges had not yet been framed, nor had any witnesses been examined, even after three years of custody. A sanction for prosecution was obtained against Chatterjee alone, while the same was still pending against other co-accused due to the State Government's inaction.

The High Court had previously denied bail, citing the seriousness of allegations and the possibility of witness tampering. Chatterjee approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, challenging this denial of bail.

The Court strongly criticised the delay in progress of trial, observing: “The appellants have been under incarceration for nearly three years and continuing their incarceration would amount to a travesty of justice. The investigation is complete and the charge sheet has already been filed.” [Para 6]

The Justices took note of a precedent in Criminal Appeal No. 5266/2024, where bail had been granted on similar terms in another corruption case. The Court emphasised that liberty cannot be held hostage to procedural stagnation, and reiterated that bail is the norm, jail the exception, particularly when trial has not even begun.

On the issue of sanction for prosecution, the Court refused to be drawn into a discussion at this stage, stating:

“We have not expressed anything on the lack of sanction... we are not going into that part of the order of the High Court which has made certain observations on the question of sanction.” [Order]

Details of the Judgment: Bail Ordered with Procedural Safeguards

While granting bail, the Supreme Court laid down strict procedural directions to balance liberty with judicial efficiency:

“Before the execution of the bail bonds, the charges will have to be framed by the Trial Court... within a period of four weeks from today.” [Order]

Following that: “The material witnesses will have to be examined within a further period of two months. After the completion of the same, the Trial Court shall release the appellants on bail.”

The Court also incorporated safeguards to prevent any attempt to derail the trial:

• Any attempt by the appellant to influence or threaten witnesses shall result in cancellation of bail.

• The appellant must cooperate fully with the trial process, and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

• The appellant is barred from holding any public office, with the sole exception of retaining his elected position as MLA in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly.

This conditional bail, therefore, reflects the Court’s careful balancing of individual liberty, trial integrity, and public interest.

“Sanction Pending Against Others No Bar to Bail for This Appellant”

The Court explicitly stated that the pendency of sanction against co-accused cannot act as a blanket bar to bail, particularly when the State Government has shown no urgency to resolve the issue. The Court declined to let executive inaction become a ground to indefinitely curtail liberty.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Partha Chatterjee v. CBI stands as a reaffirmation of core constitutional principles — the right to fair and speedy trial, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Court declared that the justice system must not convert pre-trial detention into punishment through procedural delay.

As the bench observed: “We are inclined to set aside the impugned order(s) and grant bail to the appellants... continuing their incarceration would amount to a travesty of justice.”

In doing so, the Court struck a careful balance — ensuring judicial oversight of the trial process, while upholding the individual’s right to liberty, even in cases involving serious charges like corruption.

Date of Decision: 18 August 2025