Detention Of Accused For More Than 6 Years As 'Undertrial' Is Infringement Of Right To Speedy Trial: Orissa High Court

Post By 24law
February 21, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Orissa High Court has ruled that prolonged detention of an accused as an undertrial for more than six years amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While granting bail to Dilip Ranjan Nath, accused of defrauding investors of over Rs. 31 crore, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed: “True it is that what extent of time would be considered as an infringement of right to speedy trial has not been defined in any statute, but by any standard, the detention of the Petitioner in custody for around more than 6 and ½ years as has been found in this case is considered to be infringement of right to speedy trial as guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Case Background

The petitioner was accused of running an illegal money circulation scheme through multiple companies alongside other co-accused, enticing depositors with promises of high returns and ultimately defrauding them. He was charged under Sections 120-B, 420, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, for allegedly misappropriating Rs. 31,13,938,19/- across 485 branches. The petitioner had been in custody since his arrest on August 25, 2018. With the trial still incomplete and a significant number of prosecution witnesses yet to be examined, he approached the High Court for bail.

Court's Observations

The Court considered the status report from the trial court, which revealed that only 11 witnesses had been examined out of 166 charge-sheeted witnesses, and the conclusion of the trial would take a considerable amount of time. While the Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI opposed the bail plea, citing the enormous financial loss caused by the petitioner’s alleged fraudulent scheme, the Court held that no accused, irrespective of the seriousness of the offense, can be denied their right to a speedy trial.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025, which held: “If an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. The stress of long trials on accused persons who remain innocent until proven guilty can also be significant.” Further, the Court noted that the CBI failed to provide any instructions regarding the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents. As the investigating agency responsible for prosecution, the Court held that the CBI must also bear the responsibility for the delay in trial due to its failure to examine witnesses within a reasonable timeframe.

Justice Satapathy strongly criticized the indefinite incarceration of an accused under the expectation that the trial would eventually conclude, stating: “…no one will appreciate by confining a person accused of offence without assuring him to speedy trial which is his fundamental right and a person cannot be kept confined in jail custody for indefinite period on the expectation that one or other day the trial would be concluded which is not the objective of right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Bail Conditions

Considering the extended period of incarceration, lack of clarity on prior criminal records, and the prolonged nature of the trial, the Court granted bail to the petitioner on the condition that he furnish bail bonds of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount. The Court also imposed the following conditions:

The petitioner shall not commit any offense while on bail.

He must attend all trial proceedings unless exempted.

He shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without permission.

He must provide his residence details, contact number, and any changes in residence to the investigating agency.

If he misuses bail and fails to appear in court, the trial court may initiate proceedings under Sections 84 and 209 of the BNSS, 2023.

He must surrender his passport, if any, or provide an affidavit stating that he does not possess one.

The Court clarified that the trial court retains the discretion to cancel bail if any of these conditions are violated or if new grounds for cancellation arise. Thus, while granting relief to the petitioner, the Orissa High Court reaffirmed that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right that cannot be compromised.