Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 14th February, 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 222
Judges: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
What happens when a trial is significantly delayed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The Court considered the balance between the seriousness of the alleged crime and an individual’s fundamental right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
In Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court granted bail to an accused who had been in custody for nearly five years, emphasizing the importance of speedy trials and raising concerns about the prolonged examination of witnesses by the prosecution. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
Case Background
On 24th March, 2020, Tapas Kumar Palit was apprehended while traveling in a vehicle bearing registration no. CG-07/AH-6555. The police, acting on prior information, intercepted the vehicle suspecting it was carrying articles related to Naxalite activities.
A search of the vehicle led to the recovery of several items, including:
- ✓ 95 pairs of shoes
- ✓ Green black printed cloth
- ✓ Two bundles of electric wire (each of 100 meters)
- ✓ LED lens
- ✓ Walkie-talkie and other articles
Following the search and recovery, the appellant was arrested on the same day, 24th March, 2020. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed against him.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 24th March, 2020 | Tapas Kumar Palit was arrested. |
| 24th March, 2020 | Vehicle intercepted with articles suspected to be related to Naxalite activities. |
| 16th February, 2024 | High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.1951 of 2023. |
| 14th February, 2025 | Supreme Court grants bail to Tapas Kumar Palit. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.1951 of 2023 on 16.02.2024, thereby declining to release the appellant on bail. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The case involves several sections of different statutes:
- ✓ **Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA):** Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C.
- ✓ **Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005:** Sections 8(2), (3) and (5).
- ✓ **Indian Penal Code, 1860:** Sections 120B, 201 and 149 read with 34.
- ✓ **Constitution of India:** Article 21, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial.
- ✓ **Criminal Procedure Code:** Section 313, which relates to the examination of the accused.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a speedy trial. This right ensures that no person is subjected to prolonged incarceration without a fair and expeditious trial.
Arguments
The appellant argued that he had been in custody since 24th March, 2020, and the trial was progressing slowly, with the prosecution intending to examine a large number of witnesses. The panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama had turned hostile.
The State, represented by its counsel, did not provide a definite timeline for the completion of the trial.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Delay in Trial |
✓ Appellant in custody since March 2020. ✓ Trial progressing slowly. ✓ Prosecution intends to examine 100 witnesses. ✓ Panch witnesses turned hostile. |
✓ No definite timeline for trial completion provided. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the appellant should be released on bail considering the length of his custody as an undertrial prisoner and the slow progress of the trial.
- Whether the Public Prosecutor’s decision to examine 100 witnesses is justified and contributes to the delay in the trial.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant should be released on bail? | Yes, the appellant was ordered to be released on bail. | The appellant had been in custody for nearly five years, and the trial was progressing slowly. The Court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. |
| Whether examining 100 witnesses is justified? | The Court expressed concerns about the large number of witnesses. | The Court noted that examining too many witnesses to establish the same fact could lead to indefinite delays in the conclusion of the trial. The Court advised the Public Prosecutor to exercise discretion in the examination of witnesses and the Special Judge (NIA) to inquire about the necessity of each witness. |
Authorities
The court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Malak Khan vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 Privy Council 16] | Privy Council | The Court referred to this case to emphasize that while it is important to call all Crown witnesses, there is no obligation to do so. The decision to call witnesses is ultimately a matter for the discretion of the counsel for the prosecution. |
| Article 21 of the Constitution of India | Supreme Court of India | The Court emphasized that Article 21 guarantees the fundamental right to a speedy trial, which is a crucial factor in considering the grant of bail. |
| Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code | N/A | The Court referred to Section 313 regarding the recording of the accused’s statement, specifying that the appellant’s personal presence would be required for this purpose. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission regarding delay in trial and prolonged custody. | The Court accepted the submission, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and ordering the release of the appellant on bail. |
| State’s submission regarding the seriousness of the crime. | The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the crime but balanced it against the appellant’s right to a speedy trial. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
Malak Khan vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 Privy Council 16]: The Court cited this authority to support the view that the Public Prosecutor has the discretion to decide which witnesses to examine, and it is not necessary to produce everyone.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was primarily influenced by the prolonged period of the appellant’s custody as an undertrial prisoner (almost five years) and the slow progress of the trial. The Court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also expressed concerns about the prosecution’s intention to examine 100 witnesses, suggesting that this could lead to unnecessary delays.
| Factor | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Right to Speedy Trial (Article 21) | 40% |
| Prolonged Custody as Undertrial Prisoner | 35% |
| Slow Progress of Trial | 15% |
| Concerns about Examining 100 Witnesses | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Consideration of Factual Aspects of the Case (Length of Custody, Trial Progress) | 60% |
| Legal Considerations (Right to Speedy Trial, Discretion of Prosecutor) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
Issue: Whether the appellant should be released on bail?
↓
↓
↓
↓
The Court’s reasoning included the following key points:
- ✓ The appellant had been in custody as an undertrial prisoner since 24th March, 2020.
- ✓ He had no other criminal antecedents.
- ✓ The panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama had turned hostile.
- ✓ The State could not provide a definite timeline for completing the trial.
- ✓ The Court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- ✓ The Court questioned the necessity of examining 100 witnesses, suggesting it could lead to unnecessary delays.
“However, many times we have made ourselves very clear that howsoever serious a crime may be the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“It is expected of the Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned.”
“If an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Prolonged pre-trial incarceration can infringe upon an individual’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- ✓ Public Prosecutors should exercise discretion in the examination of witnesses to avoid unnecessary delays in trials.
- ✓ Special Judges should inquire into the necessity of examining a large number of witnesses to ensure efficient trial proceedings.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- ✓ The appellant was ordered to be released on bail subject to the 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 personal presence is required for the recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- ✓ If the appellant commits any breach of the imposed conditions, the bail shall stand automatically cancelled.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, is a critical factor in considering the grant of bail, especially when an accused has been in prolonged pre-trial incarceration. This judgment reinforces the importance of balancing the seriousness of the alleged crime with the individual’s fundamental rights and the need for efficient trial proceedings.
Conclusion
In Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court granted bail to an accused who had been in custody for nearly five years, emphasizing the importance of speedy trials and raising concerns about the prolonged examination of witnesses by the prosecution. The judgment underscores the significance of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, and serves as a reminder to Public Prosecutors and Special Judges to ensure efficient and timely trial proceedings.
Category
Criminal Law
- Bail
- Speedy Trial
- Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)
Constitution of India
- Article 21, Constitution of India
Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code
FAQ
- What is the main issue in Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh?
- The main issue is whether an accused should be granted bail when the trial is significantly delayed, infringing upon their right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
- The Supreme Court granted bail to the accused, emphasizing the importance of a speedy trial and raising concerns about the prolonged examination of witnesses.
- What is Article 21 of the Constitution?
- Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a speedy trial.
- What does the judgment mean for individuals accused of crimes?
- The judgment reinforces that individuals have a right to a timely trial, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration can be grounds for granting bail.
- What directions did the Supreme Court give in this case?
- The Supreme Court directed that the accused be released on bail, restricted from entering a specific district, and required to appear online for hearings, except when personal presence is required.