The Bombay High Court opined that a person cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time and it clearly violates the fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution and time and again, this has been considered to be a justiciable ground to exercise the discretion to release an accused.
In the present case, the Applicant was in custody since 2015 and the trial was delayed and not likely to conclude in near future. Further, the co-accused were also released.
Hence, the Court concluded there was no reason as to why the benefit of long incarceration should not be extended to the Applicant.
Brief Facts:
The Applicant was arrested in lieu of offences under Sections 302, 364, 342, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Present application has been filed on the ground that firstly, the Applicant has suffered a long incarceration for almost 7.5 years and secondly, the co-accused was released.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that the Applicant was in custody since 2015 and the trial was delayed and not likely to conclude in near future. Further, the co-accused were also released.
Hence, there was no reason as to why the benefit of long incarceration should not be extended.
It was opined that factor of long incarceration of an accused as under-trail prisoner deserve its due weightage. Further, it was held that a person cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time and it clearly violate the fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution and time and again, has been considered to be a justiciable ground to exercise the discretion to release an accused.
The Bench held that deprivation of personal liberty, without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution. Access to justice and speedy trial has been well recognised as hallmark of liberty guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution and when a timely trial is not possible, the Accused cannot be made to suffer further incarceration, if he has already undergone significant period of the proposed sentence and in such circumstances, the Court would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail, keeping aside the seriousness of the accusations faced by him.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned analysis, the application was allowed.
Case Title: Akash Satish Chandalia v. The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1779 OF 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Justice BHARATI DANGRE
Advocate for Applicant: Adv. Ms. Sana Raees Khan
Advocates for Respondents: Adv. Mr. S.R. Agarkar
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
