The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is paramount, and prolonged custody without trial can justify bail, even in serious offenses.

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 undermined 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 witness