1. Appellant detained under Sections 394, 395 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code for a prolonged period without trial. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 20
2000(7) Supreme 543
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. Thomas & M.B. Shah, JJ.
Vivek Kumar -Appellant
versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2894 of 1999
Decided on 4-1-2000
The court granted bail to an appellant who had been in custody for a prolonged period without the trial commencing, holding that procedural lapses or suppression of facts by the counsel should not prejudice the accused's right to liberty.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 439-Bail-Appellant was in jail from 4.4.98 in offence under Section 394 and 395 r/w 149 IPC-Trial had not commenced-He was entitled to be released on bail despite suppression of certain facts in bail application, lapses done by his counsel. (Para 2)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Suppression of facts in the bail application and lapses by the counsel. (Para 2 )
3. Prolonged detention without trial justifies release on bail, and counsel's lapses should not prejudice the accused. (Para 2 )
4. Prolonged incarceration without the commencement of trial warrants bail, and procedural lapses by counsel should not prejudice the accused's liberty. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed and appellant ordered to be released on bail upon execution of a bond with two solvent sureties. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Does prolonged detention without trial justify the grant of bail?
Yes, the court may grant bail when an accused has been in custody for a long period without the trial commencing. (Para 2 )
7. Can an accused be denied bail due to the lapses of their counsel?
No, lapses on the part of the counsel should not be allowed to prejudice an accused person languishing in jail. (Para 2 )
8. Does the suppression of facts in a bail application preclude the court from granting bail?
No, the court may still grant bail notwithstanding the suppression of certain factual positions if other circumstances, such as prolonged detention, justify release. (Para 2 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. We are told that the appellant is in jail from 4.4.98 in connection with offences under Section 394 and 395 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is quite a long period that he has been in custody without commencing the trial. There is no need to detain him further in custody and therefore we are inclined to release him on bail notwithstanding the suppression of certain factual position when the bail application was filed. It would not have been done by the appellant. We feel that lapses on the part of the counsel should not in this case be allowed to prejudice the appellant who is languishing is jail.
3. For the aforesaid reason we order that the appellant be released on bail on execution of a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.
4. The Appeal is disposed of.
Appeal allowed.
*************
