Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial due to trial delay violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, justifying the grant of bail even in serious offences.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

(Oral)

1. The present application is filed seeking grant of bail in FIR No. 698/2021 dated 10.12.2021, registered at Police Station Mandawli Fazal Pur, for offences under Sections 365/384/506/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 09.12.2021, at about 1:45 PM, three persons abducted the complainant from Shivaji Stadium Parking, New Delhi for the purpose of ransom by falsely impersonating as CBI Officers. In pursuance of their conspiracy, the accused persons, including the applicant, took the complainant in their car and threatened to implicate the complainant in false cases. The accused persons allegedly confined the complainant in car till 7PM and demanded a sum of ₹10 lakhs as ransom. The complainant’s wife arranged a sum of ₹5 lakhs and handed over the same to the accused persons while promising to pay the remaining amount on the next day, which led to the complainant being released. On the next day, when the complainant and his wife were going to report the matter, they noticed the car used in the office and informed police.

3. The applicant was allegedly driving the car at that time. Although the applicant tried to flee, he was apprehended by police and one desi katta and two live rounds along with ₹4 lakhs of ransom money were recovered from the car.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

5. He submits that the allegations are manifestly improbable and it is apparent that the applicant has been implicated due to prior acrimony in relation to some financial transaction between the accused persons and the complainant. He submits that the testimony of the complainant suffers from material deficiencies and does not inspire confidence.

6. He submits that the trial is still at the stage of prosecution evidence and around 15 out of 23 listed prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the applicant. He submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave in nature and the complainant as well as his wife have substantively supported the case of the prosecution in their testimony. He submits that charges have been framed against the applicant for the offence under Section 364A of the IPC, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

8. I have heard the counsel and perused the record.

9. It is settled law that the Court, while considering the application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened; etc.

10. However, prolonged incarceration as an undertrial militates against the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and is also a factor which has to be kept in mind at the time of deciding the question of grant or refusal of bail.

11. In the present case, serious allegations of extortion and abduction for ransom have been made against the applicant.

12. It is argued on behalf of the applican