The Rajasthan High Court has made a significant ruling by granting bail to an undertrial prisoner who had already spent six years and four months in jail, a period approaching the maximum seven-year sentence he could face if convicted. The court strongly criticized the delay in his trial, stating that his fundamental right to a speedy trial was "grossly" and "inexcusably" violated.
Court's Strong Observations on Speedy Trial Rights
Justice Anil Kumar Upman, while allowing the bail plea, expressed deep concern over the situation. "It is quite unfortunate and a matter of extreme concern that an accused person, while being an under trial prisoner, is at the verge of completion of the maximum sentence which could have been imposed after the completion of trial and a successful conviction," the court observed.
The court emphasized that this situation strikes at the very root of the criminal justice system. It held that an accused cannot be made to suffer incarceration equivalent to, or exceeding, the sentence that could be imposed only after a conviction. To permit such a consequence would amount to punishment without trial, which is fundamentally unjust.
Background of the Case
The accused was arrested in connection with a multi-crore alleged scam case. He faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 65 (tampering with computer source documents) of the Information Technology Act. His counsel argued that he had already undergone incarceration for approximately six years and four months while the trial remained pending.
It was further submitted that the accused was facing trial before a magistrate's court, and even in the event of conviction, the maximum sentence would not exceed seven years. Given that he had already served most of this potential sentence, his continued detention as an undertrial was unjustifiable.
State's Opposition and Court's Rejection
The state counsel opposed the bail plea, pointing out that the accused had sought at least 60 adjournments to make submissions. They emphasized that the matter involved a scam of crores of rupees and prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
However, the court rejected these arguments. It noted that even if the accused did not cooperate fully at certain stages of the proceedings, this factor alone cannot absolve the court of its primary duty to ensure the speedy and efficient conduct of the trial. The prosecution's failure to produce witnesses diligently contributed significantly to the delay.
Fundamental Right to Personal Liberty
The court reiterated that personal liberty is a priceless treasure and a natural right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental facet of this personal liberty. No person accused of a criminal offence should be kept in confinement for an indefinite period as an undertrial prisoner, especially when the prosecution is not diligent in advancing the case.
The court concluded that looking at the fact that the petitioner had already suffered incarceration of six years and four months, the seriousness of the charges and pendency of other criminal cases could not be valid grounds to refuse bail. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to protecting citizens' constitutional rights against undue deprivation of liberty.
