Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 14th February, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 222
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
What happens when the wheels of justice turn too slowly? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), emphasizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court granted bail to an accused who had been in judicial custody for five years, highlighting the need to balance the seriousness of the alleged crime with the constitutional imperative of expeditious justice. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s concern over prolonged pre-trial incarceration and its impact on individual liberties.
Case Background
On March 24, 2020, Tapas Kumar Palit (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) was apprehended while traveling in a vehicle bearing registration number CG-07/AH-6555. Acting on intelligence, the police intercepted the vehicle, suspecting it was transporting items related to Naxalite activities.
A search of the vehicle led to the alleged discovery of the following items in the appellant’s possession:
- ✓ 95 pairs of shoes
- ✓ Green black printed cloth
- ✓ Two bundles of electric wire (each 100 meters)
- ✓ LED lens
- ✓ Walkie-talkie and other articles
Following the seizure, the appellant was arrested on the same day, March 24, 2020. Subsequent investigation resulted in a charge-sheet being filed against him.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 24, 2020 | Appellant Tapas Kumar Palit was arrested. |
| March 24, 2020 | Vehicle intercepted, and alleged Naxalite-related articles recovered. |
| N/A | Charge-sheet filed after investigation. |
| February 16, 2024 | High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed Criminal Appeal No.1951 of 2023, declining bail. |
| February 14, 2025 | Supreme Court grants bail to the appellant. |
Legal Framework
The appellant was charged with offenses under several laws, including:
- ✓ Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A, and 22-C of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA)
- ✓ Sections 8(2), 8(3), and 8(5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005
- ✓ Sections 120B, 201, and 149 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
These legal provisions relate to various aspects of unlawful activities, conspiracy, and offenses against the state. The UAPA is a law enacted to prevent unlawful activities and deal with terrorism-related offenses. The Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, is a state law aimed at maintaining public order and security.
Arguments
The arguments in this case revolved around the appellant’s prolonged detention as an undertrial prisoner and the right to a speedy trial.
Appellant’s Submissions:
- ✓ The appellant has been in judicial custody since March 24, 2020, amounting to nearly five years of pre-trial detention.
- ✓ The appellant has no prior criminal record or antecedents.
- ✓ Witnesses crucial to the prosecution’s case (panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama) have turned hostile, weakening the prosecution’s case.
- ✓ The trial is progressing slowly, with the prosecution intending to examine a large number of witnesses (100), and no clear timeline for completion.
- ✓ Prolonged detention violates the appellant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
State’s Submissions:
- ✓ The state acknowledged the length of the appellant’s detention but did not provide a specific timeline for the trial’s completion.
- ✓ The state emphasized the seriousness of the alleged offenses under the UAPA and other laws.
- ✓ The state argued that the trial was in progress, with 42 witnesses already examined, implying that the legal process was being followed.
Submissions Table:
| Category | Appellant’s Submissions | State’s Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Detention Period | ✓ In custody for approximately 5 years. | ✓ Acknowledged the length of detention. |
| Prior Record | ✓ No prior criminal record. | |
| Witness Testimony | ✓ Key witnesses turned hostile. | |
| Trial Progress | ✓ Slow progress, 100 witnesses to be examined. | ✓ Trial in progress, 42 witnesses examined. |
| Fundamental Rights | ✓ Violation of right to speedy trial (Article 21). | |
| Seriousness of Offense | ✓ Emphasized the seriousness of UAPA offenses. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the appellant’s prolonged pre-trial detention violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, warranting the grant of bail.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant’s prolonged pre-trial detention violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, warranting the grant of bail. | Bail Granted | The Court considered the length of the detention (5 years), the slow progress of the trial, the large number of remaining witnesses, and the hostile witnesses. The Court emphasized the importance of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and observed that prolonged incarceration without a final verdict infringes upon this right. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court referred to the following authorities:
- ✓ Malak Khan vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 Privy Council 16]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the prosecution is not obligated to call all witnesses who speak to facts the Crown desires to prove. It is a matter of discretion for the prosecution counsel, and the court should consider the persuasiveness of the testimony given in light of criticisms regarding the absence of possible witnesses.
- ✓ Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21.
Authority Consideration Table:
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Malak Khan vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 Privy Council 16] | Privy Council | Referred to for the principle that the prosecution has discretion in choosing which witnesses to examine. |
| Article 21 of the Constitution of India | Supreme Court of India | Emphasized as the basis for the right to a speedy trial, which was deemed to be infringed in this case due to prolonged detention. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Prolonged detention violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the prolonged detention of approximately 5 years without a final verdict infringed upon the appellant’s right to a speedy trial. |
| Appellant | The appellant has no prior criminal record. | Acknowledged. The Court noted this fact as a factor supporting the grant of bail. |
| Appellant | Key witnesses turned hostile. | Acknowledged. The Court considered this as weakening the prosecution’s case. |
| Appellant | Slow trial progress with a large number of witnesses remaining. | Accepted. The Court expressed concern over the indefinite delay in concluding the trial due to the large number of witnesses (100) the prosecution intended to examine. |
| State | The seriousness of the offenses under UAPA. | Acknowledged but not overriding. The Court recognized the seriousness of the alleged crimes but held that it could not override the fundamental right to a speedy trial. |
| State | The trial is in progress, with 42 witnesses already examined. | Not sufficient. The Court found that the progress of the trial was not sufficient to justify the continued detention, given the length of time already served and the number of witnesses remaining. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ Malak Khan vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 Privy Council 16]: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that the prosecution has discretion in choosing which witnesses to examine. The Court used this authority to highlight the inefficiency of examining an excessive number of witnesses to establish the same fact.
✓ Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21. The Court held that the prolonged detention of the appellant without a final verdict infringed upon this constitutional right, thus justifying the grant of bail.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was primarily influenced by the prolonged pre-trial detention of the appellant, which the Court deemed a violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also considered the slow progress of the trial, the large number of remaining witnesses, and the fact that key witnesses had turned hostile, weakening the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the need to balance the seriousness of the alleged offenses with the constitutional imperative of expeditious justice.
Sentiment Analysis Ranking Table:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention | 40% |
| Slow Progress of Trial | 25% |
| Large Number of Remaining Witnesses | 20% |
| Hostile Witnesses | 15% |
Fact:Law Ratio Table:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Consideration of Factual Aspects of the Case (Fact) | 60% |
| Legal Considerations (Law) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
Issue: Whether prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21?
↓
↓
↓
↓
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Prolonged pre-trial detention can be a valid ground for granting bail, especially when the trial is progressing slowly and the accused has no prior criminal record.
- ✓ The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is a crucial factor in determining bail applications.
- ✓ Courts must balance the seriousness of the alleged offenses with the constitutional rights of the accused.
- ✓ Prosecutors should exercise discretion in the number of witnesses they intend to examine to avoid unnecessary delays in trials.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- ✓ The appellant shall be released on bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the trial court.
- ✓ The appellant shall not enter the revenue limits of district Kanker, State of Chhattisgarh.
- ✓ The appellant shall appear online on each date of the hearing before the trial court, except when his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is to be recorded, for which he shall personally remain present before the Trial Court.
- ✓ If the appellant breaches any condition, the bail shall stand automatically cancelled.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that prolonged pre-trial detention can be a valid ground for granting bail, especially when it infringes upon the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment reinforces the importance of expeditious justice and the need for courts to balance the seriousness of the alleged offenses with the constitutional rights of the accused.
Conclusion
In Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court granted bail to an accused under the UAPA, emphasizing the significance of the right to a speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual liberties and ensuring that justice is not unduly delayed, even in cases involving serious offenses.
Category:
- ✓ Criminal Law
- ✓ Bail
- ✓ Speedy Trial
- ✓ UAPA
- ✓ Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967
- ✓ Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967
- ✓ Constitution of India
- ✓ Article 21, Constitution of India
FAQ
- Q: What is the main point of the Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh case?
A: The main point is that prolonged pre-trial detention can be a valid ground for granting bail, especially when it violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. - Q: What is Article 21 of the Constitution?
A: Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a speedy trial. - Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?
A: The Supreme Court granted bail to the accused, Tapas Kumar Palit, who had been in pre-trial detention for approximately 5 years. - Q: What conditions were imposed on the appellant’s bail?
A: The appellant was not allowed to enter the revenue limits of district Kanker, State of Chhattisgarh, and was required to appear online for each hearing, except when his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was to be recorded. - Q: What should Public Prosecutors keep in mind so that trials are not delayed?
A: Public Prosecutors should wisely exercise their discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned and avoid examining 10 witnesses to establish one particular fact.