‘Personal liberty priceless’: Man behind bars for 52 months gets bail

It was the third bail plea of the petitioner following the rejection of his earlier bail application in September 2025 with a direction to the trial court to conclude the proceedings preferably within six months. When that deadline passed without the trial being completed, he renewed his plea on the ground of continued incarceration.

Justice Anil Kumar Upman noted that the expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 of the Constitution is of the widest amplitude and covers a variety of rights, constituting a person’s personal liberty. (Image enhanced using AI)

Trial delay proved crucial

The man’s counsel argued that despite the high court‘s earlier directions, over nine months had passed and the trial continued at what was described as a “snail’s pace”. He submitted that prosecution witnesses repeatedly failed to appear despite summonses and even coercive measures adopted by the trial court.

Sheruddin was stated to have already spent over 4.4 years in jail, and the continued custody was not going to serve any purpose. The defence relied upon Supreme Court decisions recognising prolonged incarceration as a valid ground for grant of bail, particularly where there is little likelihood of the trial concluding soon.

The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that the allegations under the NDPS Act were grave and that the evidence on record did not justify the grant of bail.

The high court held that the onus for the delay was on the prosecution and not on the accused. The court noted that proceedings relating to framing of charges had concluded on May 18, 2024.

It became the prosecution’s responsibility to produce its witnesses and complete the evidence. However, despite repeated opportunities granted by the trial court, the prosecution failed to secure the presence of its remaining witnesses.

Four official witnesses were still left to be examined. The high court observed that these witnesses, being public servants connected with the investigation, were fully aware of the pending proceedings and were expected to cooperate with the court. Instead, they remained absent on successive hearing dates.

The order records that the trial court had even issued an arrest warrant on February 16 against the investigating officer after he failed to appear. The case was listed repeatedly between March and June, yet none of the remaining prosecution witnesses appeared before the court.

The court also remarked that it was “indeed unfortunate” that the case was based on a complaint filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau, whose officials themselves failed to cooperate in ensuring expeditious disposal of the trial.

‘Prolonged incarceration violative of rights’

• The expression ‘Personal Liberty’ in Article 21 of the Constitution is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a person.
• Some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19 of the Constitution.
• ‘Personal Liberty’ under Article 21 of the Constitution primarily means freedom from physical restraint of a person by incarceration or otherwise.
• Prolonged incarceration without trial is violative of the rights of an accused.
• The court should step in to protect him, and no provision can take away the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights.
• Prolonged incarceration is a valid ground for granting bail in the Indian judicial system, particularly when coupled with the anticipated length of the trial.
• The right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is a critical consideration.
• Courts should incline to grant bail to prevent undue hardship, particularly when prosecution is not showing promptness in producing witnesses.

Taking note of Sheruddin’s custody period, his “clean antecedents” and the likelihood of trial not ending anytime soon, the high court held that continued incarceration would amount to a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial and personal liberty.