Read Time: 04 minutes
The high court was hearing a bail application filed by one Akash Chandalia who was accused in double murder case and come to be arrested in 2015
The Bombay High Court recently observed that deprivation of personal liberty, without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution.
“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,” the court observed
Justice Bharathi Dangre was hearing a bail application from Akash Chandalia, who was accused in a double murder case and had been under arrest since 2015. The accused was facing trial in the Sessions Court of Pune after the police filed a chargesheet.
The accused had sought bail from the high court on the grounds of being incarcerated for 7 ½ years and the release of his co-accused by the high court.
The Additional Public Prosecutor informed the bench that the trial had already begun, with 15 witnesses having been examined.
The applicant was accused of brutally beating two individuals for 4 to 5 hours, resulting in their deaths. The applicant was assigned the role of assaulting the victims. Two other co-accused individuals were also granted bail by the high court.
The high court while allowing the bail plea of the accused said 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
“The seriousness of an offence and it’s heinous nature may be one aspect, which deserve a consideration while exercising the discretion to release an accused on bail, but at the same time, the factor of long incarceration of an accused as under-trail prisoner also deserve its due weightage. Pending the trial, a person cannot be kept in custody for an indefnite 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 order reads.
Case title: Akash Satish Chandalia vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
