Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court recently granted bail to an accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) and raised serious concerns over the prosecution's decision to examine as many as 100 witnesses, questioning the necessity and implications of such an approach on the timely conclusion of the trial.

Background of the Case

The case pertains to an appeal challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgment that denied bail to the appellant, who was booked under multiple sections of the UAPA, the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that the accused had already been in custody as an undertrial prisoner since March 24, 2020, with no prior criminal antecedents. As per the prosecution, the appellant was arrested after being found traveling in a vehicle allegedly carrying items associated with Naxalite activities, including 95 pairs of shoes, green-black printed cloth, electric wires, LED lenses, and a walkie-talkie. Despite the charge sheet having been filed and the trial ongoing, the prosecution had examined only 42 witnesses out of the proposed 100 witnesses.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Apex Court took note of the prolonged incarceration of the appellant, emphasizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Bench unequivocally stated: “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.”

Expressing concern over the prosecution's extensive list of witnesses, the Court questioned: “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?” The Court stressed that calling excessive witnesses could lead to an indefinite delay in the trial, adding: “It is expected of the Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned.”

Further emphasizing judicial efficiency, the Bench referenced the Privy Council’s ruling in Malak Khan vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 PC 16], which held: “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 witnesses who speak to facts which the Crown desire to prove.”

Delay and its Consequences

The Supreme Court remarked that delays adversely affect not only the accused but also the victims, society, and the credibility of the justice system. It emphasized: “If an accused is to get a final verdict after the 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 Court also highlighted the psychological, financial, and social impact of long trials on accused persons, especially if they are later found not guilty: “Accused persons are not financially compensated for what might be a lengthy period of pre-trial incarceration. They may also have lost a job or accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships while incarcerated, and spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees.”

Supreme Court’s Ruling

In light of these observations, the Supreme Court ordered the appellant’s release on bail, subject to conditions. Specifically, the appellant:

• Shall not enter the revenue limits of district Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

• Shall appear online for every hearing.

• Must be physically present before the trial court only when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded.

Cuase Title: Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 INSC 222

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan

[Read/Download oprder]