Rajasthan High Court grants bail to undertrial jailed for nearly full sentence duration
The Rajasthan High Court noted that the accused's fundamental and constitutional right to speedy trial was 'grossly' and 'inexcusably' violated.
Rajasthan High Court held that an accused cannot be made to suffer incarceration equivalent to, or exceeding, the sentence that could be imposed only after a conviction. (Image generated using AI) The Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to a man accused in multi-crore alleged scam case after noting that he had already undergone incarceration of six years and four months, which was close to the maximum sentence of seven years that could be imposed in the event of conviction.
Justice Anil Kumar Upman allowed the bail plea of the man who was booked for offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 65 (tampering with computer source documents) of the Information Technology Act.
“It is quite unfortunate and a matter of extreme concern that an accused person, while being an under trial prisoner and is at the verge of completion of the maximum sentence which could have been imposed after the completion of trial and a successful conviction,” the court observed.
While remarking that the situation strikes at the very root of the criminal justice system, the court noted that the man’s fundamental and constitutional right to a speedy trial was grossly and inexcusably violated.
It held that an accused cannot be made to suffer incarceration equivalent to, or exceeding, the sentence that could be imposed only after a conviction.
Background
- The accused was arrested after an FIR was registered for offences punishable under different sections of IPC and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act.
- The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused had already undergone incarceration for approximately six years and four months, while the trial was pending.
- It was argued that the accused was facing trial before the magistrate’s court, and even in the case of his conviction, the maximum sentence that may be imposed would not exceed seven years.
- Opposing the bail plea, the counsel for the state pointed out that at least 60 adjournments were sought from the accused to make submissions.
- The counsel submitted that the matter was related to a scam of crores of rupees, therefore prayed for dismissal of the bail plea.
Findings
- Personal liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is basically a natural right. No one would like to lose his liberty. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes a sense of emptiness.
- A person accused of a criminal offence cannot be kept in confinement for an indefinite period as an under trial prisoner, especially when the prosecution is not diligent in producing its witnesses.
- The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental facet of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Even if it is assumed that the accused did not cooperate fully at certain stages of the proceedings, this factor by itself cannot absolve the court of its primary duty to ensure the speedy and efficient conduct of the trial.
- Under no circumstances should the law countenance a scenario where an accused is made to suffer incarceration equivalent to, or exceeding, the sentence that could be imposed only after a conviction. To permit such a consequence would amount to punishment without trial.
- The maximum sentence in case of conviction would not exceed seven years, looking at the fact that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration of six years and four months, seriousness of the charge and pendency of other criminal cases cannot be the grounds to refuse bail.
Share
