A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment concerns the entitlement to bail of an under-trial accused, Tapas Kumar Palit, who has been in judicial custody since 24 March 2020 in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (arising from FIR No. 9/2020). The trial was underway: prosecution had examined 42 out of an intended 100 witnesses.

The High Court refused bail; the appellant challenged that refusal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court (Pardiwala and Mahadevan, JJ.) allowed the appeal and granted bail, emphasising the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 and observing that prolonged pre-trial incarceration (five years at the time of the order) with no certainty about completion of evidence infringes that right. The Court noted absence of antecedents, hostility of panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama, and prosecutorial reliance on an excessively large witness list which could cause indefinite delay.

The judgment reiterates prosecutorial discretion to limit witness examination and directs trial management measures (including online appearance and restricted local travel conditions). The Court also referred to Malak Khan v. Emperor to explain that prosecution need not call every possible witness when the testimony would be cumulatively repetitive. The order sets bail on conditions and provides directions for the Special Judge to probe the necessity of each proposed witness. 

Keywords: Article 21, right to speedy trial, bail, UAPA, long trial, prosecutorial discretion, panchnama, hostile witnesses

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal addresses the tension between two well-settled principles: the State’s interest in comprehensive prosecution of serious offences and the constitutional right of accused persons to a speedy trial under Article 21. The appellant was arrested on 24 March 2020 after recovery of various articles from a vehicle alleged to be used for Naxalite activities. A charge-sheet followed and trial before the Special Judge (NIA) commenced. Before the Supreme Court, the factual matrix was stark: five years of custody, prosecution having examined 42 witnesses while proposing to examine as many as 100, and the prosecution unable to predict when evidence would conclude.

The High Court had refused bail by relying on the gravity of the offences and ongoing trial. The Supreme Court re-examined the exercise of discretion in bail matters where protracted pre-trial incarceration risks rendering the right to speedy trial illusory. The Court balanced non-derogable procedural guarantees against prosecutorial aims, noting specific factors favouring bail: absence of antecedents, panch witnesses turning hostile, and lack of temporal certainty for trial completion.

The Bench emphasised judicial case-management responsibilities and advised active supervisory inquiry by the Special Judge into the necessity of the proposed witnesses, thereby framing a remedial approach which preserves prosecutorial aims while protecting individual liberty.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 24 March 2020, the vehicle CG-07/AH-6555 in which the appellant was travelling was intercepted based on intelligence that it carried articles associated with Naxalite activities. During search three categories of items were seized, inter alia: 95 pairs of shoes, bundles of electric wire (100 meters each), LED lens, walkie-talkie and green-black printed cloth all alleged to be used in Naxalite operations. The appellant was arrested that day and charged under multiple provisions: sections of the UAPA (including Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C), corresponding provisions of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, and IPC Sections 120B, 201 and 149 read with 34.

Trial began; prosecution examined 42 witnesses but indicated intention to call up to 100. The panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama later turned hostile. Appellant has no antecedents and had been in judicial custody since the arrest. The High Court dismissed bail. The Supreme Court found prolonged custody (then five years) without proximate end-date for trial completion and therefore concluded that continued detention would violate the right to speedy trial. Directions were issued for conditional bail, restrictions on entering District Kanker, online appearance on hearing dates and personal presence only when Section 313 CrPC questioning was to be recorded.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether prolonged pre-trial incarceration (approximately five years) without reasonable assurance of trial completion violates the accused’s right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution?

2. Whether the seriousness of offences under UAPA and related statutes is by itself a bar to grant of bail when trial is in progress?

3. Whether prosecution’s intention to call an extensive list (circa 100) of witnesses, many of whose testimony may be cumulative, can justify continued detention and consequent delay?

4. What obligations rest on the Special Judge and the Public Prosecutor to manage witness lists to avoid undue delay?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant’s counsel emphasised that the appellant had been in custody since 24 March 2020 and had no criminal antecedents. They relied on the practical unfairness of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the fact that the panch witnesses to the recovery had turned hostile, undermining the prosecution’s case on key facts. It was urged that the prosecution could not show when the trial would conclude; indefinite detention pending protracted witness examination would violate Article 21. The appellant sought bail on appropriate conditions pending trial.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State relied on the gravity of offences under UAPA and allied statutes, arguing public interest and national security implications weigh strongly against bail. The prosecution pointed to extensive witness lists as necessary to prove the case and submitted that once trial is underway and evidence is being recorded, bail should ordinarily be refused particularly in serious offences. The State did not, however, offer an estimate for trial completion.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail, setting conditions. The Bench reiterated that howsoever serious a crime may be, the accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Noting the appellant’s five-year detention as an undertrial, absence of antecedents, hostility of the panch witnesses, and that only 42 out of an intended 100 witnesses had been examined, the Court held that indefinite delay with no timeline for conclusion was unacceptable.

The Bench reviewed prior dicta that ordinarily disfavour bail when trial has commenced and witnesses are being examined in serious crimes, but distinguished the present facts: prolonged incarceration without a foreseeable completion infringed constitutional protections. The Court emphasised prosecutorial duty citing Malak Khan v. Emperor that while it is desirable to call all Crown witnesses, there is no absolute obligation to summon every possible witness where evidence would be cumulative. The Court explained that the Public Prosecutor must use discretion to avoid needless multiplication of witnesses.

The role of the Special Judge (NIA) was highlighted: the Judge must inquire whether proposed witnesses will add materially to the case or merely repeat evidence, and manage witness lists to avoid indefinite delays. Recognising the adverse socio-economic and personal consequences of long pre-trial incarceration, the Court observed systemic harms to accused persons and to victims, and the erosion of public confidence in the justice system caused by long trials.

Directions accompanied bail: the appellant was restrained from entering the revenue limits of District Kanker, required to appear online on hearing dates, and mandated to personally appear only when recording of Section 313 CrPC statement was due. Bail would be automatically cancelled on breach. The High Court’s refusal was set aside and trial court instructed to impose appropriate terms.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling principle is that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 can, in circumstances of indefinite or unreasonably prolonged pre-trial detention, outweigh the State’s interest in detention pending trial even for serious offences. When an undertrial has been incarcerated for a prolonged period (here, five years) and there is no certainty about the time to complete evidence, bail may be granted subject to suitable conditions.

Prosecutorial insistence on calling a very large number of largely cumulative witnesses does not, by itself, justify continued detention where it produces indefinite delay. Judicial case-management obligations require active inquiry by trial courts into the necessity of each witness proposed by the prosecution.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court lamented systemic delay and the human cost of long trials job loss, family disruption, stigma, legal expense and urged both Public Prosecutors and Judges to adopt efficient case management. It observed that Judges are masters of their courtrooms and possess procedural tools under the CrPC to prevent malafide prolongation of trials.

The Court also commented on the social cost to victims and community trust when trials drag on. The Bench reiterated that prosecutorial discretion must be exercised wisely and that not every witness need be produced where testimony would be repetitive. Malak Khan was invoked to underline prosecutorial discretion in witness selection.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Special Judges should ask the Special Public Prosecutor to explain the necessity of each witness where witness lists are large.

2. Prosecution should avoid calling multiple witnesses for a single point where testimony will be cumulative.

3. Trial courts must actively manage trials and use procedural tools in the CrPC to prevent unnecessary delay.

4. Where prolonged detention has occurred and no proximate trial-end is foreseeable, courts should consider bail on appropriate conditions even in serious offence cases.

5. Conditional modalities (like territorial restrictions and online appearance) may be imposed to balance liberty with trial integrity.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment is a reaffirmation of the constitutional imperative that criminal justice must be swift as well as fair. It balances the gravity of offences against constitutional liberties and compels both prosecution and trial courts to adopt disciplined witness management. Practically, the ruling provides a template for lower courts confronted with long-drawn trials: prolonged pre-trial detention without clear termination timelines is a powerful factor favouring bail; prosecutorial pride of numbers cannot trump individual liberty; and judicial case-management is indispensable.

The directions for online appearances and limited territorial movement are pragmatic conditions safeguarding public interest while restoring liberty. The case will serve as an authoritative reference point where systemic delay in trials particularly in cases under special statutes like UAPA risks converting Article 21 from a right to a ritual.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2025, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 630 : 2025 INSC 222.

2. Malak Khan v. Emperor, AIR 1946 Privy Council 16.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India, art. 21.

2. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

3. Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005.

4. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections relied upon as per judgment).

5. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (procedural powers and Section 313 reference).