Supreme Court orders bail after 5-year undertrial custody under UAPA: Key takeaways on right to speedy trial

Background of the case

In Tapas Kumar Palit Vs State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court of India examined whether an assessee charged under stringent special laws can continue to be denied bail when the trial has remained incomplete for an unduly long time, despite the seriousness of the allegations.

The appeal challenged the judgment dated 16.02.2024 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.1951 of 2023, wherein the High Court refused to grant bail to the appellant in Sessions Case No.32/2020, arising out of FIR No.9/2020 dated 24.03.2020.

The case involved allegations under:

  • Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 – Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C
  • Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 – Sections 8(2), (3) and (5)
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 201 and 149 read with 34

The Supreme Court granted leave, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the release of the appellant on bail, while simultaneously issuing wider observations on delay in criminal trials and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

Factual matrix and prosecution allegations

Interception and recovery

According to the prosecution, on 24.03.2020, the appellant was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration number CG‑07/AH‑6555. Acting on prior intelligence that this vehicle was allegedly transporting materials connected with Naxalite activities, the police intercepted it.

Upon search, the authorities claimed to have recovered the following articles, said to be in the conscious possession of the appellant:

  • 95 pairs of shoes
  • Green-black printed cloth
  • Two bundles of electric wire, each approximately 100 metres
  • LED lenses
  • Walkie-talkies
  • Certain additional articles

The appellant was arrested on the same day, 24.03.2020, and was remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted and the matter committed to the Sessions Court as Sessions Case No.32/2020.

Progress of trial

The Supreme Court noted the following status of the proceedings:

  • The trial had already commenced and was in progress.
  • Out of a proposed 100 witnesses, the prosecution had examined 42 witnesses.
  • The prosecution intended to examine the remaining witnesses, but the State was unable to indicate any definite timeframe for completing the evidence.
  • Importantly, the panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama had turned hostile, diluting the evidentiary value of the recovery.

Despite this, the appellant continued as an undertrial prisoner from 24.03.2020 till the date of the Supreme Court’s order, i.e., almost five years of continuous incarceration without conclusion of the trial and without any prior criminal history.

Supreme Court’s approach to bail in serious offences

Ordinary rule against bail after commencement of trial

The Bench recorded that the Supreme Court has, in earlier decisions, taken the view that once:

  1. The trial has commenced, and
  2. Witnesses are being examined,

then in cases involving grave offences such as murder, dacoity, rape, and similar serious crimes, courts ordinarily refrain from granting bail, especially where evidence is already coming on record.

This principle is founded on the concern that premature interference in an ongoing trial may prejudice the administration of criminal justice in cases of serious allegations.

Why this case merited a different outcome

Despite being conscious of the above principle, the Court carved out an important exception based on the prolonged duration of undertrial detention and the absence of any realistic timeline for completion of trial.

The Supreme Court emphasised: