Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on February 14, 2025 asked the trial courts and public prosecutors to ensure that an unnecessarily large number of witnesses are not examined in a case during the trial, observing that howsoever serious a crime may be, the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

Allowing bail to a man arrested under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for carrying Naxalite materials, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan asked why the public prosecutor wanted to examine 100 witnesses in the case, saying no useful purpose would be served if 10 witnesses are examined to establish one particular fact.

"This results in indefinite delay in conclusion of trial. It is expected of the public prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned. Where the number of witnesses is large, it is not, in our opinion, necessary that everyone should be produced," the bench said.

In this regard, the court opined, the role of the Special Judge (NIA) would also assume importance. The Special Judge should inquire with the Special Public Prosecutor why he intends to examine a particular witness if such witness is going to depose the very same thing that any other witness might have deposed earlier, court said.

"We may sound as if laying some guidelines, but time has come to consider this issue of delay and bail in its true and proper perspective. 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," the bench said.

Court pointed out that the stress of long trials on accused persons – who remain innocent until proven guilty – can also be significant.

"Accused persons are not financially compensated for what might be a lengthy period of pretrial incarceration. They may also have lost a job or accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships while incarcerated, and spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees. If an accused person is found not guilty, they have likely endured many months of being stigmatised and perhaps even ostracised in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with their own resources," the bench said.

Court emphasised that delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society, and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued.

"Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently," the bench said.

In the case, court ordered release of Tapas Kumar Palit on bail, by allowing his appeal against the Chhattisgarh High Court's order of February 16, 2024.

The appellant was arrested on March 24, 2020, for carrying articles ordinarily used relating in the Naxalite Activities, including walkie-talkie, dresses, LED lens etc.

The First Information Report was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C respectively of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, Sections 8(2), (3) and (5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and Sections 120B, 201 and 149 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Examining Palit's plea, the court noted the prosecution intended to examine 100 witnesses and State counsel had no idea as regards the time likely to be consumed to complete the recording of the oral evidence, though 42 witnesses had been examined.

The court said it had been now five years that the appellant was in judicial custody. He had no other antecedents. The panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama had also turned hostile.

"We are conscious of the order passed by us taking the view that once the trial commences and the witnesses are being examined then in serious crimes like murder, dacoity, rape, etc, the court ordinarily should not exercise its discretion for the purpose of grant of bail, more particularly, looking into the evidence which has come on record," the bench said.

The court felt in circumstances of the case, it was left with no other option but to order release of the appellant on bail.

"We do not undermine the seriousness of the crime that has been alleged. 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," the bench said.

The court directed that the appellant would not enter into the revenue limits of the district Kanker, State of Chhattisgarh.

He should appear on-line on each date of the hearing before the trial. It is only in the last when his further statement under Section 313 of the CrPC is to be recorded, he should personally remain present before the trial court, the apex court ordered. 

"We make it clear that if the appellant commits breach of the condition in any form as imposed by us, the bail shall stand automatically cancelled," the bench said.

Case Title: Tapas Kumar Palit Vs State of Chhattisgarh