The right to bail is upheld in cases of prolonged incarceration, emphasizing the necessity of speedy trials as part of personal liberty under Article 21, where detention without trial for excessive periods is impermissible.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the bail application, trial delays, and relevant jurisprudence:

Case Details and Facts * The applicant was arrested on 15.10.2018 and has been incarcerated for 6 years, 6 months, and 25 days without trial (!) (!) (!) . * The case involves offences under Section 302 of the IPC (murder of the applicant's brother) (!) . * The trial has been delayed for over 6 years, specifically regarding the listing of witnesses, with no foreseeable conclusion (!) (!) . * The court noted that the Mumbai Central Prison is severely overcrowded, housing 220–250 inmates in barracks sanctioned for only 50 (!) .

Legal Principles: Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception * The primary rule for bail applications is to ascertain if the accused is likely to appear for trial; bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons against it (!) . * Granting bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, particularly when personal liberty is at stake due to long incarceration (!) . * This principle is grounded in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty (!) (!) . * An accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and deprivation of liberty before conviction is punitive unless necessary for the trial process (!) (!) . * The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, not to punish them or act as a preventative measure in the absence of specific statutory restrictions (!) (!) .

Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 * A "reasonable, fair, and just" procedure under Article 21 inherently includes the right to a speedy trial (!) (!) . * No procedure can be considered reasonable if it does not ensure a reasonably quick trial (!) . * Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the fundamental rights of the accused, causing mental agony, financial loss, and damage to personal relationships (!) (!) (!) . * The Supreme Court has held that if the State fails to provide a speedy trial, it cannot oppose bail pleas solely on the grounds that the crime is serious (!) (!) . * Detaining an under-trial for a long period without trial amounts to "surrogate punishment" which is impermissible (!) .

Precedents Supporting Bail Due to Long Incarceration * In Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, the Supreme Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing the plight of under-trials in flooded prisons (!) . * In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, the Court emphasized that personal liberty is fundamental and suffering lawful eclipse only under "procedure established by law" (!) . * In Hussainara Khatoon, the Court held that a speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 (!) . * In Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors., the Court outlined guidelines stating that the right to speedy trial encompasses all stages of the criminal process and that undue delay impairs the accused's ability to defend themselves (!) (!) . * In State of Kerala v. Raneef, the Supreme Court stated that delay in concluding the trial is an important factor in deciding bail applications, noting that denying bail to an ultimately acquitted person wastes years of their life (!) . * In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, the Supreme Court held that Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime, and the State should not oppose bail if it cannot guarantee a speedy trial (!) . * Recent High Court and Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Raghvendr Singh, Balwinder Singh, Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay) have granted bail to under-trials incarcerated for 4 to 6+ years due to the unlikelihood of trial completion in the near future (!) (!) (!) .

Conclusion and Order * Given the applicant's incarceration of over 6 years and the impossibility of completing the trial soon, the court held that continued detention violates Article 21 (!) . * Bail was granted subject to conditions including furnishing a bond with sureties, reporting to the Investigating Officer, attending the court on specific dates, and not influencing witnesses (!) . * The order clarified that granting bail does not determine the merits of the case but addresses the issue of prolonged incarceration (!) .