1. Prosecution under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 — Prolonged incarceration — Failure of prosecution to conclude trial within reasonable time. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : M.B.Shah
Paramjit Singh
Versus
State (N.C.T.) Of Delhi
Case No. : 34 of 1999
Date of Decision : 1/13/99
An accused is entitled to bail if the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time and the prosecution fails to produce evidence or provide a status update on the trial's progress, especially after prolonged incarceration.
Headnote:(A) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Bail - Delay in trial - Accused in custody for a prolonged period without the trial being concluded - Prosecution's failure to produce evidence on several scheduled dates and failure to file an affidavit regarding the stage of the trial - In such circumstances, the accused is entitled to be released on bail. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was prosecuted under a special act and had been in custody since May 1992. While a co-accused was released on bail, the appellant's previous bail application was dismissed with the observation that a fresh application could be made if the trial was not concluded within a reasonable time. Despite the trial being fixed for several dates, the prosecution failed to produce evidence, and the state failed to file an affidavit indicating the stage of the trial.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the trial had not been concluded within a reasonable time and the state had failed to provide the requested information regarding the progress of the trial or produce evidence.
Issues: Whether the appellant should be released on bail given the prolonged incarceration and the failure of the prosecution to conclude the trial or provide a status update.
Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of the trial, coupled with the prosecution's failure to produce evidence or explain the delay in the trial's progress, justifies the release of the accused on bail.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Application for bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration and failure of the prosecution to conclude the trial within a reasonable time. (Para 2 )
3. Prosecution failed to produce evidence on scheduled dates and the administration failed to provide an affidavit on the trial's stage or appear in court. (Para 2 )
4. Prolonged incarceration coupled with the prosecution's failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time justifies the grant of bail. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed — Appellant released on bail. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. Under what circumstances can an accused be released on bail when the trial is delayed?
An accused may be released on bail if the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time and the prosecution fails to produce evidence or provide the court with the current stage of the trial. (Para 2 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE appellant is being prosecuted for an offence under the provisions of Terrorist I and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. He has been lingering in jail since May, 1992. His co-accused Jasbir Singh was released on bail by the learned Designated Judge on 16/8/1992. The appellant moved this Court earlier for being released on bail and by order dated 6/11/1997 this Court had dismissed the prayer with the observation that if the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time it will be open to the appellant to apply again to the Designated Court for releasing him on bail. As the trial was not concluded till May 1998 an application for bail was filed but that was rejected by the learned Designated Judge. It has been stated on affidavit that the trial of the case was fixed to several dates in May and June 1998 but the prosecution did not produce any evidence on any of the above dateS.When the matter was listed on 7/12/1998 the counsel for the Delhi Administration wanted two weeks time to file an affidavit indicating the stage of the trial. Thereafter two adjournments have been given. But it is unfortunate that no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Delhi Administration nor the counsel appearing for the Delhi Administration is present in Court. In the circumstances, we have no other option than to release the appellant on bail. We accordingly direct that the appellant be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Designated Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi.
(3) THE appeal is allowed.
