Recently, the Bombay High Court granted bail to a man who had been held in custody for over 7 years without facing any trial.

Highlighting a breach of the right to speedy justice as outlined in Article 21 of the Constitution, the High Court noted that the individual's prolonged detention without facing trial warranted the granting of bail.

“Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life and personal liberty. It is a trite law that an accused has a right to speedy trial and the same is implicit in the scope and ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this case, although the Applicants are under incarceration for about seven years and four months, the trial has not yet commenced and not even a single witness has been examined. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the Applicant’s fundamental right to speedy trial,” the order reads.

The single-judge bench, headed by Justice Madhav Jamdar, considered a bail application submitted by two individuals. The application underscored their nearly seven years and four months of detention without the commencement of the trial.

The incident in question, leading to the charges, was reported on May 5, 2015. Subsequently, Applicant No. 1 was taken into custody on June 8, 2016, while Applicant No. 2 faced arrest on August 10, 2016.

Although the charges were formally framed on December 4, 2018, the progress of the trial has since remained stagnant. As per the charge sheet, the prosecution has identified about 32 witnesses whose examination is pending. Applicant No. 1 faced five additional cases, with an acquittal in one instance, while in the remaining cases, he was not implicated as an accused.

The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that although the trial had not yet started even after seven years and four months, the material on record indicated the involvement of the applicants in the crime.

The applicants submitted that they were willing to reside in another district, as the witnesses were residing in the same locality where the crime was committed.

Mr. Kamran S. Shaikh, a/w. Mr. Rameshwar Lokhare, Mr. Sanket Karankot, and Mr. Changdev S. Shingade, Advocates for Applicants

Ms. S. S. Kaushik, APP, for Respondent – State

Case title: Amol Duryodhan Kale & Anr vs State of Maharashtra