Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Piyush Bhandari vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:46039) on 12 November, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:46039]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 13911/2024
Piyush Bhandari S/o Shri Prabhas, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Silip Mohalla,rishabdev, Dist- Udaipur, Raj. (Presently Lodged In
Central Jail , Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manisha Phophaliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
12/11/2024
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing the 3rd bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the
instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter
are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
1. FIR Number 181/2016
2. Concerned Police Station Rishabdev
3. District Udaipur
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 302 of the IPC
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of impugned 18.09.2024
order
2. The first and second bail applications being S.B. Criminal
Misc. Bail Application Nos.5452/2019 & 14194/2023 came to be
dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders dated
13.05.2019 & 07.03.2024. While rejecting the earlier bail
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (2 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
application, this Court directed the learned trial Court to complete
the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of
six months. Yet there seems no hope of culmination of trial.
Hence, the instant bail application.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant
Manoj Panchal filed a written report on 28.04.2016 alleging inter
alia that his cousin Neelam’s marriage was solemnized with Harish
Panchal in the year 2012 and out of their wedlock, one male child
born but due to discord between them, she was living at her
paternal home from last two years; she was working as a Teacher
in a school wherein Piyush was also a Teacher; he was in love with
her, but she never responded him. Due to perturbed from his
failure in love, he assaulted Neelam when she was going to
School, as a result of which, she succumbed to death. On the
basis of the above, an FIR NO.181/2016 got registered at the
Police Station Rishabdev for the offence 302 IPC and the petitioner
got arrested on 29.04.2016.
4. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the
case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-
petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures
and surmises.
5. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application
and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of
accused on bail.
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (3 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and
perused the material made available to the Court.
7. It is emanating from the record that the petitioner has been
accused for an offence of murder and he is incarcerated since
29.04.2016 i.e. for last more than eight and half years pending
trial without culmination of the same within near future and which
has incited this Court to step up for considering his release on this
count alone. Without going into the intricacies, niceties and merits
of the matter since infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by which a right has
been conferred upon every accused to have a speedy trial, has
certainly been infringed. The charges may be grave; the material
in support thereof may be indicating his role in commission of
crime or the punishment may be severe for the accusation, still
unless the guilt is proved, he cannot be held guilty much prior to
declaring him a guilty through a judgment and so also the trial
has to come to an end within a reasonable period.
8. This Court feels that an under trial prisoner should not be
kept confined for an indefinite period for no fault of him in
impeding the course of trial. A perusal of the material revealing
that the trial had been commenced in this matter in the year 2020
but owing to one or the other reason, the recording of the
prosecution witnesses could not be completed. It is transpiring
that out of the total 27 projected prosecution witnesses, few
witnesses are yet to be examined. This Court feels that looking to
the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it would still take a long
time to reach onto a legitimate conclusion. It is also noticed that
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (4 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
sincere endeavors have not been made by the trial Court in
proceeding with the trial to get an early culmination of the same.
9. Dealing with the identical issue where the trial had been
protracted for unreasonable period, an elaborate discussion has
been made by this Court while deciding the S.B. Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.5916/2023 in the matter of Lichhman Ram @
Laxman Ram Vs. State the relevant part of which would be apt
to reproduce here which read as under:-
7. This Court feels that the nature and gravity of offence and
availability of material in support thereof are not the only factors to
be taken into account while considering a bail application. The fact
that trial is to be concluded within a reasonable period of time is
imperative while considering grant of bail to an accused. It is settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is presumption of
innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the objective for keeping a
person in jail is to ensure his presence to face the trial and to receive
the sentence that may be passed. This detention is not supposed to be
punitive or preventive in nature. An accused is considered to be
innocent until he or she or they are proven guilty in the court of law.
8. As per the fundamental rights granted to every citizen/person by
the Constitution of India, the accused cannot be expected to languish
in custody for an indefinite period if the trial is taking unreasonably
long time to reach the stage of conclusion. An under trial prisoner,
who is waiting for the trial to complete and reach a conclusion about
his guilt for the alleged crime, is not only deprived of his right to a
speedy trial but his other fundamental rights like right to liberty,
freedom of movement, freedom of practising a profession or carrying
on any occupation, business or trade and freedom to dignity are also
hampered.
9. Life without liberty is like a body without soul. Freedom is the open
window through which pours the sunlight of the human spirit and
human dignity. Personal liberty of the accused is sacrosanct and
quintessential to the very spirit and structure of a civilisation. Jeremy
Bentham, the great English jurist, postulated that the greatest(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (5 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]happiness of the greatest number is the end of law. The concept of
civil liberty is embedded in individualism. This simply means that the
purpose of the state is to help every individual in reaching their
highest development and evolving into the best personality, thereby
reaching a point where law and state are not required by the society.
Thus, when personal liberty of an individual is threatened, his
development is in peril which is a matter of great concern. Sir Wiiliam
Blackstone has deftly observed on page 134 of the first volume of his
book, ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’ that,
“Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing
situation or moving one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own
inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by
due process of law”.
Justice cannot be presumed to have been administered merely on
passing of a judgment of conviction and order of sentence or a
judgment of acquittal; rather administration of justice shall be
deemed to have been completed when the trial is concluded within a
reasonable period of time and the accused as well as the
complainant/victim are not made to wait for years on end to know the
result of the trial.
10. One of the founding fathers and the Third President of them
United States of America, Thomas Jefferson, has rightly said that,
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” Though the
victim/complainant party has the right to seek justice against an
accused person but that does not mean that the right of the accused to
a fair trial can get hampered. A fair trial is one which is concluded
within a reasonable period of time.
11. It is not just a fundamental right but also a human right of every
accused as incarceration for an indefinite period pending trial is in
contravention of the universal rights that are imperative for us all
sans any kind of discrimination. Justice P.N. Bhagwati has embodied
the spirit of the afore-mentioned observation in Maneka Gandhi Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 in the
following words:
“The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest
amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the
personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the status(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (6 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under
Article 19.”
12. No one is unaware of the fact that justice delayed is justice
denied. On one hand, if a victim has to wait for years to see the
perpetrator get his due and on the other hand, if the accused is
innocent and it is so decided that he was not guilty for the crime as
alleged by the prosecution, then there is no justifiable answer that can
put out the fire that has been burning in the minds of the parties since
the very inception of the criminal proceedings.
13. A petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed in
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna reported in 1979 SCR (3) 169, praying for the
release of a large number of men, women and children that were
languishing in jails in Bihar for offences which if found guilty, were
punishable by a sentence of not more than few months. Following the
creative deliverance passed in the case of Maneka Gandhi (supra)
which expanded the scope of interpretation under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, the right to a speedy trial was interpreted as
being implied in the broad gamut of rights that are borne out of right
to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21. Justice
Bhagwati further expressed his anguish over the fact that the bail
system of India works on the rusty assumption that monetary loss will
deter an accused from fleeing from justice and thus, it operates
harshly against the poor and indigent persons of the society. The
burden of the period of detention falls on the innocent people who are
the members of the family of the accused. A set of guidelines were
issued by the Apex Court in this case to ensure that the courts
subordinate to each of the High Courts take lesser time to reach a
legitimate conclusion in a trial and that there should be greater
access to bail along with humane living standards for the under-
trials.
14. Subsequent to Hussainara Khatoon (supra), Hon’ble the
Supreme Court held that the right to speedy trial is available at all the
stages, be it the stage of investigation or inquiry, trial, appeal,
revision and even retrial, in Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. Vs. R.S.
Nayak & Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 1701. In addition to the
above, it was also held that a time limit cannot be set for the
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (7 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
conclusion of trial as there are many factors that impact the right to
speedy trial and the facts and circumstances of each case need, to be
considered separately. An order for conclusion of trial within a fixed
time is possible in specific cases where the circumstances and nature
of offence demand it but a fixed time limit for all the trials cannot be
imposed.
15. In the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in AIR 2012 SC
830, Hon’ble the Supreme Court had observed that as the
investigation is complete and charge sheet has already been filed by
the investigating agency, there remains no necessity to keep the
accused in custody for further investigation. Being cognizant of the
fact that the alleged offences were such that if proved, they could
cause peril to the Indian economy, still Hon’ble the Supreme Court
upheld the right of an under-trial prisoner to be released on bail. In
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IV Bail Application No.14677/2021
titled as Banwari Meena v. State of Rajasthan, this Court has passed
an elaborate order in similar context holding that it is a well-
established canon of criminal law that there is presumption of
innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the, objective for keeping a
person in jail is to ensure his presence to face trial and to receive the
sentence that may be passed. This detention is not supposed to be
punitive or preventive in nature. In another case titled Savanta v.
State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous VII Bail Application
No. 3701/2022), this Court has held that over-incarceration of
undertrial prisoners, beyond reasonable period of time, is violative of
their fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial. Any trial that is
deemed fair should conclude in a reasonable period of time.
16. While keeping an accused detained, the opportunity to the
prosecutor to lead evidence can only be given for a reasonable
period. The wider connotation of the phrase ‘reasonable period’ be
understood to be one year because the case is classified as a sessions
case which would mean that the like cases should commence and
conclude within a session, that is, one year. Even if an elastic
interpretation of the expression ‘reasonable period’ is taken on the
pretext of certain unavoidable circumstances, then it can only be
doubled and even in that situation, trial has to be completed within
two years while keeping an accused in custody. Suffice it would to say
that for the purpose of determination as to whether the accused is
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (8 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
guilty or not, only a reasonable period can be awarded to the
prosecutor if the accused is behind the bars. The cases which are
classified as session case are purposefully directed to be heard by
senior officer of District Judge Cadre looking to his experience and
rank/grade/post. In criminal jurisprudence prevalent in India, there is
a presumption of innocence working in favour of the accused until he
is proven guilty in the trial. The trial is conducted for the purpose ofm
affording an opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the charge and
only for the purpose of proving guilt or adducing evidence on record,
an unreasonable period of time cannot be granted as the same
infringes the fundamental rights of an accused which are otherwise
guaranteed by the Constitution of India. While entertaining a bail
plea, the court of law is required to take into account the above-
mentioned aspect of the matter as well besides the gravity of offence
and quantum of sentence. After pondering over the legal provisions
made in the code of Criminal Procedure, the law enunciated by
Hon’ble the Supreme Court through plethora of judicial
pronouncements and upon deliberation of bail jurisprudence, it is
understood that the only thing which a court of law is to ascertain
while entertaining a bail plea is whether the accused should be
allowed to come to the court to attend the judicial proceeding from
his home and he may be allowed to remain with his family and within
the society on the specific condition that on the stipulated date of the
hearing of the case, he will willfully attend the court proceeding or he
is such a person that even in the pending trial, he should be detained,
should not be allowed to visit his family and should be lodged at a
specified place of detention so that on the day of hearing, he may be
brought to the court from the jail. In other words, it is to be decided
whether he may be allowed to eat, sleep and live with his family like a
man ordinarily does or he may be allowed to eat, sleep and live in the
jail. It all boils down to this that whether the Court wishes to allow
the accused to come to the court to attend the proceedings from his
home upon furnishing his bonds and surety of independent person(s)s
or the court thinks that he cannot be allowed to roam free and
therefore, he should be detained so that he may be brought before the
court on the day fixed for the hearing. This Court is of the considered
view that this is the only thing which is to be thought over and to be
ascertained while entertaining a bail plea. The main object of keeping
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (9 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
a person behind the bars pending trial is nothing more but to ensure a
smooth, unhindered, fair and speedy trial and that he may be present
to receive the sentence as may be passed.
17. Courts should not lose sight of the fact that pre-conviction
detention has some punitive implications and the purpose of detention
before conviction is to secure their presence at the trial and ensure
their personal attendance in cases where necessity dictates their
arrest and jail is the exception not the rule.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently passed a judgment in
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1525 of 2021 titled as Ashim @ Asim Kumar
Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem
Kumar Bhattacharya v. National Investigation Agency vide order
dated 01.12.2021 wherein looking to the aspect that the fundamental
right of the undertrial prisoner to have a timely trial was getting
violated due to long and, indefinite period of incarceration, the trial
court was directed to grant the benefit of post-arrest bail in favour of
the appellant.
19. In Union of India (UOI) Vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in AIR 2021
SC 712, Hon’ble the Supreme Court upheld the order of the High
Court of Kerala granting bail to an accused and observed that had it
been a case at the threshold, the Hon’ble Court would not have paid
heed to the respondent’s prayer but looking to the length of time that
the accused has already spent in jail and the likelihood of the trial
taking still more time to conclude, they agreed that the High Court
was not left with any other option but to release the accused on bail.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as below:
“An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the
Appellant’s right to lead evidence of its choice and establish
the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the
Respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part III of our
Constitution have been well protected.”
20. In another recent case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation & Ors., reported in AIR 2022 SC 3386,
Hon’ble the Supreme Court took cognizance of the fact that the jails
of the country are over-flowing with prisoners and that arrest, being a
draconian measure that curtails the liberty of the arrested individual,
should be used sparingly. It was also observed that accused can be
considered for enlargement on bail on the basis of unreasonable
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (10 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
delay being one of the grounds. The Apex Court classified offences
into four broad categories and prescribed guidelines with respect to
following statutory law as well as precedents laid down by the Apex
Court with regard to Sections 41 & 41A, 87 & 88, 167, 170, 309(1)
among others, with the expectation that it would help in unclogging
the prisons and result in reduction of pendency of bail applications.
21. The inmates who have spent years on end to see what has been
decided in their case have probably resigned to their ill fate and
become used to the confines of the four walls of the prison. It reminds
this Court of the reference made to Dr. Manette’s predicament in the
Charles Dickens’ novel ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, reported in AIR 2011
SC 340 while dismissing the appeal filed against grant of bail to the
accused who was a doctor and had already spent 66 days in custody.
In the book, Dr. Manette had spent such a long time of eighteen years
as an inmate that he forgot his name, profession and other details
about his life that existed prior to him becoming a prisoner at La
Bastille. This Court is anxious over the fact that jails debilitate the
under-trial prisoners and if after the long wait, the accused is
ultimately acquitted, then how would the long years spent by the
under-trial in custody be restored to him/her/them. The fact that the
imprisonment of a family member affects the whole family cannot be
overlooked and if long incarceration pending trial is considered to be
harsh on the accused, then it should also be considered to be equally
harsh on the family members of the accused. The rule is that pre-
conviction detention is not warranted by law.
22. There have been repetitive pronouncements by this Court as well
wherein considering the fact of long incarceration inter alia other
aspects, bail has been granted to accused persons. Indisputably, the
petitioner has been in custody since long and the protracted trial will
violate his fundamental right to a timely trial. 23. In Writ Petition
(Criminal) No 279 of 2022, titled Mohammed Zubair Vs. State of
NCT of Delhi & Ors, while granting bail to the accused vide order
dated 20.07.2022, the Apex Court observed that the accused was
trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process where the process
had itself become the punishment.
24. Similarly, in cases where under-trial prisoners are made to wait
and the trial is prolonged, the procedure of criminal proceedings itself
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (11 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
becomes a punishment for such detainees. If the provisions laid down
in the Code of Criminal Procedure are followed to the letter and not
just in spirit, there will be lesser room for grievance related to speedy
trial. Having noted the significance and development of the right to
speedy trial, it is also important to consider the following factors
while adjudicating a bail application against the backdrop of the
right to a speedy trial:
i) The delay should not have been a defence tactic. Who
has caused the delay is also to be seen. Every delay
does not necessarily prejudice the accused.
ii) The aim is not to interpret the right to speedy trial in
a manner so as to disregard the nature of offence,
gravity of punishment, number of accused and
witnesses, prevailing local conditions and other
systemic delays.
iii) If there is a strong reason to believe that the accused
will surely flee from justice if released on bail and it will
be a hard task for the investigating agency to re-
apprehend him, then the benefit of bail should not be
extended in his favour.
iv) If it is shown by placing compelling material on
record that the release of the accused may create a
ruckus in the society or that he will create such a
situation wherein the prosecution witnesses will not
come forward to depose against him or that he may
otherwise hamper the evidence of prosecution in any
other manner, then utmost caution needs to be exercised
in such cases before granting bail to the accused.
The (iii) and (iv) points are to be considered only when strong and
cogent evidence is placed on record or a compelling reason in
support has come to light but surely not just on the basis of a simple,
blanket submission made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the
prosecution/complainant/victim.
25. While hearing a bail plea, if there appears the slightest possibility
of acquittal of the accused based on any of the submissions made by
counsel for the parties, then there is no harm in inclining towards
extending the benefit of bail in favour of the accused so far as it is
limited to the justifiable disposal of the bail. It is a settled principle of
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (12 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
law that the defence is not required to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and it can rely on the principle of preponderance of
probability. In juxtaposition, the burden to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt always lies upon the prosecution except in
exceptions prescribed by law. Thus, whenever a doubt is raised
against the story of the prosecution, it needs to be considered
objectively but needless to say, it is to be considered only for the
limited purpose of deciding the bail application and should not
influence the trial court so as to adversely affect the interests of either
of the parties in any manner.
26. While adjudicating a bail plea, the Court should never assume
that the case put forth by the prosecution is sacrosanct and true and
the accused is guilty; however, the same does not mean that the case
of the prosecution should be approached with an initial presumption
of doubt. Suffice it to say that if a substantial plea is raised at the time
of praying for bail, it can be considered tentatively for the purpose of
granting bail at that stage, without deeply speculating the result of the
trial as a dead end. In addition, if material is placed on record, it
needs to be considered.
27. Coming back to the point of protracted trial and consequent
expansion of period of incarceration, this Court is of the firm view
that the accused should be released on bail if he has been
incarcerated pending trial for more than a reasonable period of time
unless extraordinary and overwhelming circumstances prevent the
Court from doing so.
28. The procedure of law is that the exact date of imprisonment would
commence from the judgment of conviction and the date of order of
sentence. The further provision of law is that the period already
undergone would be set off against the period of sentence. The
purpose of keeping the accused behind bars is to ensure that the
accused would not flee from justice and to avoid the apprehension
that he may hamper the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution
evidence. True it is that the gravity of offences and severity of
punishment attached with the crime form vital parts of consideration
while adjudicating a bail plea but the period of incarceration pending
trial must be a reasonable period. It is the duty of the prosecutor as
wells as of the Court to ensure that the prosecution evidence is
produced within a reasonable period which must not be an unfair and
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (13 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
unjust. In order to justify period of incarceration pending trial, the
aid of provision for setting off period of incarceration suffered
pending trial with the term of imprisonment decided by the convicting
Court in the order of sentence cannot be taken in cases where the trial
went on for a long period of time and ultimately resulted into
acquittal.
29. The right to be freed from detention and get a fast culmination of
trial are liberties that every accused should be able to enjoy and in
cases where the delay is not caused at the hands of the accused, he
bears the brunt of the follies of the criminal justice system.
30. The right to speedy trial has developed to become an inalienable
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India by way of a slew of judgments passed by Hon’ble the Supreme
Court, however, it has been prevalent since times immemorial and
finds mention even in the Magna Carta Libertatum commonly called
Magna Carta, the royal charter of rights agreed to by King John of
England in around 1215 A.D. Among other conventions and
precedents, the text of Magna Carta was one of the major inspirations
that laid the basis for English Common Law and the pre-eminent
English luminaries like Lord Macaulay and Sir James Stephen drafted
our criminal legislation and statutes. Clause 40 of the Magna Carta
which reads as “To no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or
delay, right or justice”, paved the way for right to habeas corpus as
well as the idea of adjudication by the jury or the equals of the
accused. The idea that no accused person can be detained indefinitely
during the pendency of trial also sprang up from this clause.
31. The matter needs to be looked at from a humanitarian lens also.
The accused is spending his time as an under-trial in prison where the
living conditions are depressing and pitiable. The bellies of prisons
all across the country are bloated due to the humongous influx of
prisoners in India. The prisons are overcrowded to an unimaginable
extent. Nelson Mandela was the torch-bearer of the movement against
apartheid in South Africa and he had the following words to say
about his fabled incarceration at the Robben Island Prison from 1964
to 1982:
“No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside
its jail. A nation should not be judged by how it treats
its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (14 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
Any prison that was built with the infrastructure to hold a
certain number of prisoners would be overpopulated and congested if
it would be required to house a percentage of prisoners which is way
beyond its capacity. Prisoners in India sleep in turns as there is no
space for all of them to sleep at the same time. They are packed like
sardines in the cells and are deprived of basic needs like balanced
diet, sanitation, sewage, hygiene etc. From food and ration to
commodities like soap, detergent, toothpaste etc., everything is
provided by the state in measured quantities for the number of
prisoners that the prison is designated to hold and not for the number
of prisoners that it actually holds in reality. In such cases, an under-
trial prisoner cannot be subjected to such harsh and inhuman
conditions for eons.
32. The Amnesty International India’s Report titled Justice
Undertrial: A Study of Pre-trial Detention in India reveals that as of
2019, 69% of the prisoners in Indian prisons are undertrials which
means that the under-trial prisoners are more than twice in number
than the convicted prisoners. As per the report, the average
occupancy rate of Indian jails is 114%. There are very few prisons
that are equipped and able to decide which under-trial prisoners are
eligible for release under Section 436A of the CrPC. As per the
Prison Statistics India 2020 published by the National Crime Records
Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of India, 76.12% of
the total prisoners across the country are under trial prisoners.
Nothing can be assumed about the life expectancy of an accused,
rather if an accused is made to stay in prisons in such miserable
conditions, it would lead to more health problems and impair the
health of the accused person. While sharing his thoughts about his
experience in jail, Mahatma Gandhi had once said, “Men in prison
are ‘civilly dead’ and have no claim to any say in policy.” Ours is not
a despotic nation rather it is a democratic nation which proudly
upholds the liberties of its citizens. Despite Supreme Court guidelines,
legal and executive reforms, there is no significant improvement in the
state of the under-trials.
33. Law and society go hand in hand. A lawless society is no better
than a jungle. Right to life is not a bare right; it means right to a
dignified life and personal liberty and includes in its ambit all aspects
that help a person lead a life of dignity. Any law which does not
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (15 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
accommodate or adapt to the evolution of the society seizes to serve
its purpose. When a person is detached from the society and put in
jail, he goes through a big change of social environment. The present
petitioner has spent seven long years in prison while he awaits the
verdict of his ongoing trial. Though he has not yet been proved to be
guilty but he has spent all the seasons of last seven years in the jail
precinct; he has not been a part of any social gathering, major family
events, festivals and like occasions for seven years and if he is finally
acquitted after culmination of trial then no court can give him back
the time and reputation that he has lost. There is no way to
recompense the accused who has spent a prolonged period pending
trial in case there is an acquittal waiting for him at the end of a
seemingly endless journey. No concept of solatium to an under trial
prisoner in case of acquittal exists in the statutes of our country.
Moreover, it is pertinent to note that if under trial prisoners are
released looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, then there
can be more space for the inmates and better living standards in the
jails. For instance, if a jail is built to house 100 inmates only but it is
overcrowded to the extent of housing 200 inmates, then release of
under trial prisoners post consideration of relevant factors would
result in improved living conditions for all prison mates.
34. Considering the above observations, specially the right to speedy trial
being a fundamental right, the over-crowdedness and a skewed prison-
prisoner ratio and the rightful object of detaining an arrestee and in light of
the guiding pronouncements of the Apex Court on this issue; this Court
feels persuaded to take a liberal approach to grant bail to the accused
without deeply diving into the niceties of the matter as well into the nature
and gravity of the offence. The long period of detention spent by the
accused in custody awaiting trial without any hope of conclusion of trial in
the near future has shaken the conscience of this Court and thus, ends of
justice would meet in releasing him on bail. Needless to say, the above
observations are limited to the justifiable disposal of the present bail
application and shall not influence the trial judge in any manner so as to
adversely affect the rights of either of the parties.
In view of the enunciation made regarding provisions for
granting bail and looking to the fact that the petitioner is behind
the bar for more than eight and half years and noticing that
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46039] (16 of 16) [CRLMB-13911/2024]
culmination of trial in a near future is not a seeming fate,
therefore, without going into the niceties of the matter it is felt
that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial should be
protected. There is high probability that the trial may still take a
long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it
is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as
named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the
dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
115-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 18/11/2024 at 09:29:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)