Case Law Details
Tapas Kumar Palit Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the Chhattisgarh High Court’s order refusing bail and directed the release of the appellant in a case involving offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appeal arose from the High Court’s judgment dated 16 February 2024, which had declined to grant bail in connection with Sessions Case No. 32/2020 arising out of FIR No. 9/2020. According to the prosecution, on 24 March 2020, the appellant was travelling in a vehicle intercepted by the police based on prior information that it was carrying articles related to Naxalite activities. During the search, the police recovered 95 pairs of shoes, green-black printed cloth, two bundles of 100-metre electric wire, LED lenses, walkie-talkies, and other articles allegedly found in the conscious possession of the appellant. The appellant was arrested on the same day, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed.
The Supreme Court noted that the trial was in progress, with the prosecution having examined 42 witnesses out of a proposed 100 witnesses. The Court observed that it had previously taken the view that once trial has commenced and witnesses are being examined, courts should ordinarily refrain from granting bail in serious offences. However, the Court found that the appellant had remained in judicial custody as an undertrial since 24 March 2020, had no criminal antecedents, and that the panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama had turned hostile. It further recorded that the State was unable to indicate the time likely to be required for completion of the evidence.
Considering that the appellant had spent nearly five years in judicial custody without conclusion of the trial, the Supreme Court held that he should be released on bail notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations. The Court emphasized that however serious the alleged offence may be, an accused possesses the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. It clarified that granting bail did not dilute the seriousness of the allegations but was necessitated by the prolonged incarceration and uncertainty regarding completion of the trial.
The Supreme Court also expressed concern over the prosecution’s proposal to examine 100 witnesses and highlighted the responsibility of the Public Prosecutor to exercise discretion while deciding the witnesses required to prove the case. Referring to the decision in Malak Khan v. Emperor, the Court observed that there is no obligation to examine every witness capable of proving the same fact and that unnecessary duplication of evidence contributes to indefinite delays in criminal trials. The Court stated that the Special Judge (NIA) should enquire from the Special Public Prosecutor why a particular witness is proposed to be examined if another witness has already deposed on the same aspect. It observed that prolonged undertrial incarceration for six to seven years before a final verdict infringes the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and noted the personal, financial, and social consequences faced by accused persons during lengthy trials. The Court further observed that delays adversely affect accused persons, victims, society, and the credibility of the criminal justice system, while emphasizing that trial courts possess adequate procedural powers to ensure efficient conduct of criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. Additionally, the Court directed that the appellant should not enter the revenue limits of District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, and should appear online on every hearing date before the trial court. Personal appearance was required only for recording his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, for which he would be permitted to enter District Kanker. The Court further ordered that any breach of these conditions would result in automatic cancellation of bail.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur dated 16.02.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.1951 of 2023 by which the High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant herein (original accused) and thereby declined to release him on bail in connection with Sessions Case No.32/2020 arising from the First Information Report bearing no.9/2020 dated 24th March, 2020 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 (for short “the UAPA”), 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, 1860.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein on 24th March, 2020 was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration no. CG-07/AH-6555. The police had information that the above numbered vehicle is to pass by and the same is carrying articles ordinarily used relating in the Naxalite Activities. Accordingly, the vehicle was intercepted.
4. The search was undertaken and the following articles were recovered from the car alleged to be in conscious possession of the appellant herein:-
(i) 95 pair of shoes
(ii) green black printed cloth
(iii) two bundles of electric wire each of 100 metere
(iv) LED lens and
(v) walki talki and other articles.
5. The appellant was arrested on the very same date i.e. 24th March, 2020. At the end of the investigation charge-sheet came to be filed.
6. The trial is in progress. Till this date the prosecution has been able to examine 42 witnesses. The prosecution intends to examine as many as 100 witnesses. 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.
7. However, this is a case in which the appellant is in custody as an under trial prisoner since 24th March, 2020. He has no other antecedents. The panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama have also turned hostile.
8. It’s been now 5 years that he is in judicial custody. The learned counsel appearing for the State has no idea as regards the time likely to be consumed to complete the recording of the oral evidence.
9. In such circumstances, we are 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.
10. 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.
11. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe as to why the Public Prosecutor wants to examine 100 witnesses. Who are these 100 witnesses? We are aware that it is the public prosecutor who could be said to be in-charge of the trial and he has to decide who is to be examined and who is to be dropped. But at the same time, no useful purpose would be served if 10 witnesses are examined to establish one particular fact.
12. The aforesaid 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.
13. Where the number of witnesses is large, it is not, in our opinion, necessary that everyone should be produced. In this connection, we may refer to Malak Khan vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 Privy Council 16] where their Lordships observed as follows at page 19:-
“It is no doubt very important that, as a general rule, all Crown witnesses should be called to testify at the hearing of a prosecution, but important as it is, there is no obligation compelling counsel for the prosecution to call all witnesses who speak to facts which the Crown desire to prove. Ultimately it is a matter for the discretion of counsel for the prosecution and though a Court ought, and no doubt will, take into consideration the absence of witnesses whose testimony would be expected, it must judge the evidence as a whole and arrive at its conclusion accordingly taking into consideration the persuasiveness of the testimony given in the light of such criticism as may be levelled at the absence of possible witnesses.
14. In this regard, 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. 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 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 stigmatized and perhaps even ostracized in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with their own resources.15. We would say 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.
15. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail forthwith subject to terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.
16. However, we direct that the appellant shall not enter into the revenue limits of district Kanker, State of Chhattisgarh. He shall 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 Cr.P.C. is to be recorded, he shall personally remain present before the Trial Court. For this limited purpose, he shall enter into district Kanker.
17. 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.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Author Bio
