Back
Prolonged Detention Without Trial Progress Justifies Bail: Delhi High Court in Shivam Gupta Case
A Decade in Jail Without a Verdict – When Liberty Trumps Gravity
The has granted to an undertrial who spent over twelve years in for a 2013 murder and robbery case, ruling that the sheer gravity of an offence cannot be an to bail when the trial fails to progress with and the stands infringed.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, in an order dated , enlarged Shivam Gupta on bail under , noting that Gupta had already served a “ ” of even the maximum non-capital sentence possible for the offence under .
The Nightmare at Mayur Vihar
According to the prosecution, on , Gupta and three to four associates tricked the 14-year-old son of the complainant into opening the gate of House No. 31-A, Pocket A-1, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, on the pretext of a courier delivery. Once inside, the intruders – armed with a knife and a pistol – held the deceased Ms. Madhubala Gupta at knife-point, dragged her to a rear bedroom, and confined her two minor children in an adjoining room. The house was ransacked of gold and silver ornaments and cash. The assailants locked the gate from outside and fled. The children later found their mother unresponsive; she was declared brought dead at the hospital. The post-mortem attributed death to asphyxia due to manual strangulation and smothering, with injuries indicating a violent struggle.
Gupta was arrested on , and had remained in continuous since then. Silver jewellery weighing over two kilograms, the deceased’s bank passbook, and cheque books were allegedly recovered from his possession at the time of arrest. A child witness (PW-3) identified Gupta during a and later via video conferencing.
Trial in Slow Motion
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the trial made little headway. Over twelve years, only 15 of the 32 cited prosecution witnesses had been examined. Three previous bail applications before the trial court were dismissed – on , , and – primarily on grounds of the and Gupta’s criminal antecedents, including his involvement in another FIR concerning the abduction and murder of two minor children.
Arguments: Liberty v. Heinousness
Gupta’s counsel argued for bail based on the (12 years, 2 months, and 25 days as of ) and the in trial, which was largely attributable to the repeated non-appearance of police witnesses. The State, represented by , opposed vehemently, pointing to the heinous nature of the crime – the murder of a woman in front of her traumatised children – and Gupta’s involvement in two other criminal cases, suggesting a .
The Court’s Reasoning: Cannot Be Sacrificed
Justice Kaurav acknowledged that the allegations were grave and that the accused had antecedents that “cannot be brushed aside.” However, he emphasized that the gravity of an offence, by itself, has never been the sole touchstone for denying bail once the under is infringed.
The court relied on the ’s recent decision in , where bail was granted to an undertrial charged with murder who had been in custody for nearly four years without a single witness being examined. The had held: “We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately.”
The court also invoked the landmark ruling in , where the held that even on bail under the cannot oust the constitutional court’s jurisdiction to grant bail where continued incarceration would offend . Since do not carry such special restrictions, Justice Kaurav reasoned that the principle applies – with even greater force – under the general bail provision of the BNSS.
Police Witnesses Blamed for Delay
The High Court specifically called for a report from the trial court on the hurdles impeding progress. It found that Inspector CP Meena sought exemption from personal appearance on four occasions, while the original investigating officer, Inspector Vijay Shrotriya, failed to appear on five occasions. The court directed the , to ensure that investigating officers and police witnesses appear on the specific dates required by the trial court.
Parity with Co-Accused
The court further noted that three of the four adult co-accused – Ajai Rai, Mahesh Gupta @ Sunny, and Nar Singh Kumar Verma – had already been enlarged on . While parity alone is not determinative, the court held it is a relevant circumstance when considered alongside the independent ground of .
Key Observations
“Even when the accused stands charged with the most serious of offences, the seriousness of the charge cannot, by itself, operate as an to the grant of bail once it is demonstrated that the trial has ceased to progress with and the accused's stands infringed.”
“If constitutional liberty is held to prevail over an express legislative restriction on bail once incarceration becomes prolonged and the trial shows no realistic prospect of timely conclusion, the same principle must, , inform the exercise of an otherwise unfettered judicial discretion under .”
“The delay is substantially attributable to the non-appearance of police witnesses rather than to any act or omission on the part of the applicant.”
The Decision
Justice Kaurav concluded that continued incarceration was not warranted and directed that Gupta be enlarged on subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court. The application was disposed of with a copy of the order sent to the Commissioner of Police for ensuring compliance regarding witness appearance.
The judgment serves as a potent reminder that even in cases involving the most heinous offences, the constitutional promise of a cannot be indefinitely postponed. When the state’s own machinery contributes to delay, the scales of justice must tilt in favour of liberty.
