Bombay HC says prolonged incarceration pending trial is violation of fundamental rights

Bombay High Court/ File Photo

The Bombay High Court has emphasized that individuals cannot be held in custody indefinitely pending trial, as it infringes upon the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. This significant ruling came as the court granted bail to Akash Satish Chandalia, who had been arrested in September 2015 on charges of double murder and conspiracy by the Lonavala police in Pune district, reported PTI.

Justice Bharati Dangre, presiding over a single bench, issued the bail order on September 26, stressing the need to strike a balance between the gravity of the charges against the accused and the prolonged duration of the trial.

In Photos: Protests erupt in Libya after Foreign Minister`s informal meeting with Israeli counterpart

1 year agoPHOTO GALLERY

In its order, the court asserted, "The seriousness of an offence and its heinous nature may be one aspect, which deserves consideration while exercising the discretion to release an accused on bail, but at the same time, the factor of long incarceration of an accused as an under-trial prisoner also deserves its due weightage."

According to the report, the court firmly stated that detaining a person pending trial for an indefinite period directly violates their fundamental rights, as enshrined in the Constitution. This aspect has been consistently recognized as justifiable grounds for the exercise of discretion in releasing an accused.

Despite previous directives to expedite the trial, the court noted that there had been no substantial progress. Consequently, it deemed it necessary to grant bail to the accused.

The court emphasized the importance of striking a balance between the severity of the charges and the protracted trial process. It posed a significant question: "If, after this extended trial period, the accused is acquitted, how would the system compensate for the years of deprivation of liberty?"

Justice Dangre underscored that depriving an individual of their personal liberty without ensuring a speedy trial is not in line with Article 21 of the Constitution. Access to justice and a prompt trial are fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. When a timely trial is not feasible, the accused cannot be subjected to prolonged incarceration, the judge said according to the PTI report.

The court also noted that if an accused has already served a substantial portion of the potential sentence during the trial period, it is incumbent upon the court to grant bail, regardless of the seriousness of the accusations against them.

Advocate Sana Raees Khan, representing Chandalia, argued that her client had been in custody for nearly eight years, and the trial had yet to conclude. She contended that prolonged incarceration amounted to a pre-trial conviction and a violation of fundamental rights.

Chandalia faces charges under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 302 for murder. The case alleges that Chandalia and a co-accused, a gangster, kidnapped two individuals and fatally assaulted them. The prosecution's case asserts that Chandalia participated in the assault. Notably, two other co-accused in the case have already been granted bail.