Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Kishor Karmakar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s). 8263 of 2024
Decided On : 01-07-2024
Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - The court found that the High Court's limitation of the bail period to two months was incorrect, emphasizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial, which should have warranted the petitioner’s release on bail pending the trial's final disposal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and had been in custody since May 11, 2022. He applied for bail, which was granted by the High Court for a limited period of two months.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's order to limit the bail period to be incorrect, stating that if the right to a speedy trial was infringed, the petitioner should have been released on bail pending the trial's final outcome.
Issues: Whether the High Court's limitation of the bail period was justified given the circumstances of the case and the infringement of the right to a speedy trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under the Constitution, closely linked to the right to life and personal liberty, and should not be limited arbitrarily.
Result: The Supreme Court directed that the petitioner shall continue to remain on bail pending further orders.
ORDER :
1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is called out.
2. The petitioner has been charged for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He preferred bail application before the High Court. The High Court took notice of the fact that the petitioner was in custody since 11th May, 2022 and only one witness had been examined so far. In such circumstances, the High Court thought fit to order release of the petitioner on bail but only for a period of two months.
3. In such circumstances, the petitioner is here before this Court with the present Special Leave Petition.
4. In our opinion, it is an incorrect order. If the High Court was of the view that the right of the petitioner to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed, then the High Court should have ordered release of the petitioner on bail pending final disposal of the trial itself. There was no good reason for the High Court to limit the period of bail.
5. It is now well settled that the right to a speedy trial is recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and is closely tied to the right to life and personal liberty, as held by this Court in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna [1979 (3) SCR 532].
6. In view of the aforesaid, issue notice.
7. We direct that the petitioner shall continue to remain on bail pending further orders by this Court.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right that necessitates the granting of bail without arbitrary limitations when such rights are infringed.
Bail – Howsoever grave crime may be, but if accused is denied his right of speedy trial and is languishing in jail for years together and for no fault on his part, he cannot be kept in jail for indef....
Bail – Howsoever serious crime may be, if right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider plea for bail appropriately
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional guarantee, and prolonged detention without trial can justify bail, regardless of prior criminal antecedents.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, ensuring personal liberty and just legal processes, which must be upheld during bail considerations.
Successive NDPS bail requires material change in circumstances; Supreme Court reservations on denying bail to foreign nationals and Article 21 speedy trial violation from prolonged delay justify bail....
An accused person cannot be held in custody indefinitely as an under-trial prisoner, and the denial of bail based on the gravity of the crime or trial status violates the constitutional right to a sp....
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional right under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial justifies the granting of bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
