Liberty of an Undertrial Cannot Be Held Hostage to Judicial Delay: Bombay High Court Grants Bail After 6.5 Years of Custody Without Trial Progress

“How long is too long a period of incarceration as an under-trial for a Court to conclude that the right to speedy trial is defeated?” — Bombay High Court delivered a significant ruling affirming that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be made to suffer endlessly due to procedural delays. The Court granted bail to a man who had been in jail for over six years and six months in connection with a murder charge, noting that the trial had not even begun despite his prolonged incarceration. Justice Milind N. Jadhav made it clear that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," and a court cannot remain indifferent when a trial has stagnated indefinitely.

The applicant, Vikas Chandrakant Patil, had been arrested on October 15, 2018, for allegedly murdering his younger brother, based on an FIR registered by their mother, who is also the mother of the deceased. Since then, he remained in continuous custody for over six and a half years. The High Court was informed that the matter had been pending before the Trial Court without a single witness being examined and continued to be listed only for “witnesses,” with no progress.

The Court recorded that, “for the last more than 6 years the case was listed before the Trial Court for list of witnesses which continues to prevail even today,” and concluded that “commencement and conclusion of the trial in the near foreseeable future would be a distinct impossibility.”

Justice Milind N. Jadhav underscored that the liberty of an undertrial cannot be extinguished by the State’s inability to conduct timely trials. He said: “Argued before me is a case concerning liberty of an under-trial who has been incarcerated for 6 years, 6 months and 25 days, a situation impacting the rights of under-trials conferred by Article 21 of Constitution to speedy justice as also personal liberty.”

He reminded that the power of the High Court to grant bail under Section 439 CrPC is wide and unfettered, and held that: “The principal rule being that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, allowing accused persons to better prepare their defence.”

The Court drew from multiple landmark decisions, including Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India, and Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), all of which stress the presumption of innocence, the need for speedy trials, and the deleterious effects of prolonged pre-trial incarceration.

“Presumably Innocent Person Must Have His Freedom”: Court on Bail Jurisprudence
Justice Jadhav extensively quoted from the Supreme Court’s pronouncements affirming that bail is not a matter of charity but of right in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Referring to Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, he noted: “The High Court might be safely trusted in this matter and it goes without saying that it would act in the best interests of justice.”
The Court stated that undertrial detention of this length, with no realistic prospect of trial completion, creates a constitutional injury that cannot be overlooked: “Detaining an under-trial prisoner for such an extended period further violates his fundamental right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21.”

On Prison Conditions and Overcrowding:
Justice Jadhav did not shy away from confronting the systemic issues of prison overcrowding, referring to an official report from Mumbai Central Prison which stated: “Every barrack sanctioned to house 50 inmates as on date houses anywhere between 220 – 250 inmates.”

He observed that such conditions magnify the hardship of prolonged undertrial detention, especially for individuals not yet proven guilty, and noted that such “prisonisation” leads to loss of dignity, livelihood, and autonomy: “The risk of an under-trial losing his identity… status, dignity and autonomy over his personal life, all of which affects his self-perception.”

On the Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial:
Quoting from the seminal judgment in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, the Court reinforced: “No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as ‘reasonable, fair or just’ and it would fall foul of Article 21.”

The Court also referred to the rhetorical and poignant question raised in a blog by two undertrial prisoners titled “Proof of Guilt”: “How long is too long a period of incarceration as an under-trial for a Court to conclude that the right to speedy trial is defeated?”
Justice Jadhav called this question “relevant prima facie,” and acknowledged that while long incarceration alone is not an absolute ground for bail, it is nevertheless a crucial constitutional consideration.

In a judgment rich with constitutional philosophy and human rights reasoning, the Bombay High Court decisively protected the fundamental rights of the undertrial. Holding that prolonged custody without trial cannot be justified under any principle of justice, the Court granted bail to Vikas Chandrakant Patil and reaffirmed that “punishment begins only after conviction” — not before.
“Incarceration without end is not incarceration in accordance with law.”

Date of Decision: 09 May 2025