Supreme Court rules: Prolonged incarceration without charges violates constitutional rights, read judgement

The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, expressed deep concern over the prolonged incarceration of the appellant, noting that "If an accused is incarcerated for a period of approximately five years without even framing of charges, leave aside the right of speedy trial being affected, it would amount to imposing sentence without trial."

The Court emphasized the detrimental effect of such delays on the rights of the accused as well as the victim, pointing to systemic failures in the trial process that had led to this "sorry state of affairs." The judgment has raised significant questions about the protection of fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly regarding the right to a speedy trial.

The appellant challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2024, which upheld the rejection of the appellant's bail application by the Additional Special Judge, Pune. The appellant's bail was rejected under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), based on one criminal antecedent and evidence suggesting involvement in organized criminal activities.

The appellant argued that both the learned Single Judge and the Special Judge erred in rejecting the bail application. He contended that the invocation of MCOCA based solely on one prior criminal antecedent is unjustified. Furthermore, the appellant provided photographic evidence showing he was 26 km away from the incident location at the time it occurred. The appellant, arrested at the age of 21 and now 26, argued that after spending approximately five years in custody, he should be granted bail.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The State and the complainant strongly opposed the appeal. They argued that the appellant is part of a gang that has been causing terror in the area through criminal activities. They maintained that the learned Single Judge's decision to reject the bail is well-founded, and the appellant's reliance on the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh is misplaced. Therefore, no interference with the decision is warranted.

The Court observed that the learned Single Judge had rejected the appellant’s appeal through a well-reasoned order, relying on the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Vishwnath Maranna Shetty. The Court found no error in the reasoning, as the appellant failed to meet the twin conditions required under the relevant Act: (i) reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence, and (ii) assurance that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

The Court also referred to the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, where it was held that prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to a speedy trial, a facet of the rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court expressed concern over the prolonged delay in the appellant’s case, noting that the accused had not been produced before the Court for a significant period, and charges had not been framed. The Court expressed its dismay at this "sorry state of affairs," stating that incarcerating an individual for approximately five years without framing charges not only violated the right to a speedy trial but also amounted to imposing a sentence without trial. The Court emphasized that such delays were detrimental to the rights of the victim as well.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashing both the order of the Special Court and the learned Single Judge’s order, and granted bail to the appellant with stringent conditions, including a bond of Rs. 50,000 and regular appearances before the Court.

In its decision, the Court imposed certain stringent conditions to protect the interests of both the prosecution and the victim. The appellant was directed to be released on bail under the following conditions: (i) the appellant must execute bonds of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount; (ii) the appellant must not enter the area of Akluj Tehsil during the trial; (iii) the appellant must inform the Trial Court and the Police Station of his place of residence; and (iv) the appellant must continue to appear before the learned Special Judge on every date regularly.

The Court also issued directions to address the systemic issues causing trial delays. It instructed the Registrar General of the High Court of Bombay, the Secretary of Home, and the Secretary of Law and Justice in Maharashtra to work together to develop a mechanism to ensure that accused persons are produced before the Trial Court on each date, either physically or virtually, preventing further delays in trials.

Picture Source :