Long Incarceration Of Undertrial Without Commencement Of Trial Violates Article 21; Bail Is The Rule Even In Murder Cases: Bombay High Court

"The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not limited to mere animal existence but includes the right to live with dignity. The court emphasized that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 7, 2026, held that where an undertrial has suffered prolonged incarceration and there is no likelihood of the trial commencing in the foreseeable future, the Constitutional Court is empowered to grant bail, as "bail is the rule and jail is the exception."

A bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India applies irrespective of the gravity of the offence, including cases involving murder.

The applicant, Bhaben Bharali Saikaya, had been incarcerated for over 9 years, 8 months, and 8 days in connection with a murder charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Despite the long period of detention, the trial had not yet commenced, and the prosecution had cited 126 witnesses, rendering the prospect of a near-term conclusion highly improbable.

The primary question before the court was whether the continued detention of an undertrial, pending trial for an extended period, violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The court was further called upon to determine if bail could be granted in a serious offence like murder, purely on the ground of long incarceration, despite the existence of circumstantial evidence.

Right to Speedy Trial

The court underscored that the state's inability to provide a speedy trial cannot be used as a ground to keep an accused indefinitely in custody. Referring to the landmark ruling in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the court noted that any procedure that does not ensure a reasonably quick trial falls foul of Article 21.

Constitutional Mandate of Article 21

The bench asserted that the "Right to Speedy Trial" is an integral part of the right to life and liberty. It noted that the "worries, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace" resulting from a prolonged trial are factors that cannot be ignored by a court exercising its discretionary powers.

"Undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death, disappearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise."

Bail Jurisprudence and Judicial Discretion

The court emphasized that the power to grant bail is unfettered by conditions, provided the discretion is exercised judiciously. The court must balance the prosecution's right to lead evidence with the accused's constitutional rights. If the state lacks the "wherewithal" to provide a speedy trial, it cannot oppose bail on the basis of the seriousness of the crime.

"Criminals are not born but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption."

Precedent and Parity

The court surveyed a series of judicial precedents, including Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, noting that the Supreme Court has consistently held that imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content. Depriving an accused of liberty based on the belief that they might tamper with evidence or commit further offences is only permissible in the most extraordinary circumstances.

In light of the applicant's incarceration of nearly a decade without trial, the High Court allowed the bail application. The court directed the release of the applicant subject to stringent conditions, including the furnishing of a personal bond and a surety of Rs. 10,000, monthly reporting to the Investigating Officer, and a prohibition on leaving the State of Maharashtra without prior permission from the Trial Court.

Date of Decision: 07 October 2026