1. Accused arrested for possession of articles used in Naxalite activities under UAPA, Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, and IPC — Appeal against denial of bail. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 346
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B.PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Tapas Kumar Palit – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 15971 OF 2024)
Decided On : 14-02-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv. Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv. Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is paramount, and prolonged custody without trial can justify bail, even in serious offenses.
Headnote:(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40; Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 - Sections 8(2), (3), (5); Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 201, 149 read with 34 - Bail application - Appellant in custody since 24th March, 2020, with no antecedents and hostile witnesses - Right to speedy trial under Article 21 emphasized - Seriousness of crime acknowledged, but bail granted due to prolonged custody. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 16)
(B) Delay in trial - Public Prosecutor's discretion in witness examination questioned - Excessive witnesses may lead to trial delays - Importance of efficient case management highlighted. (Paras 11, 15)
(C) Conditions for bail - Appellant directed to avoid district Kanker and appear online for hearings. (Paras 17, 18)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Denial of bail based on the seriousness of the crime versus request for release due to prolonged incarceration and hostile witnesses. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Prolonged pre-trial incarceration without a clear trial end date infringes the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 , 15 )
4. The fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 outweighs the seriousness of the alleged crime when an accused faces indefinite pre-trial incarceration. (Para 10 , 14 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Accused released on bail subject to specific conditions and restrictions on movement. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
6. Does the seriousness of a crime preclude the grant of bail if the trial is significantly delayed?
No. Regardless of the crime's seriousness, an accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Prolonged incarceration as an undertrial prisoner can justify the grant of bail. (Para 10 , 14 )
7. Is the prosecution obligated to examine every witness listed in the charge-sheet?
No. The Public Prosecutor has the discretion to decide which witnesses to examine and which to drop. There is no obligation to call all witnesses, especially if their testimony is redundant. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
8. What is the role of the Trial Judge in preventing trial delays caused by excessive witness lists?
The Special Judge should inquire why the Special Public Prosecutor intends to examine specific witnesses, particularly if they are expected to depose the same facts as previous witnesses. (Para 14 )
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
