The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that prolonged pre-trial detention exceeding eight years, without fault of the accused and despite repeated judicial directives for expeditious trial, constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21. This ruling reinforces that judicial inaction cannot be penalized against the accused and mandates bail as a remedial measure when procedural delays become systemic.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shaukat S/o Noor Mohmad, aged 33, was arrested on 30.09.2018 in connection with F.I.R. No. 172/2018 registered at Police Station Bap, District Jodhpur. The case involves allegations of murder under Section 302 IPC, criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, destruction of evidence under Section 201 IPC, and offences under the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 3, 25(1)(a), and 5/27). The alleged victim was Sabir.
Key Facts
- The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.09.2018, continuously for over eight years as of the date of the order.
- The co-accused, Kishan Singh, who was allegedly present at the scene of the crime, was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.01.2019.
- The prosecution’s material witnesses have already been examined, and their statements recorded before the trial court.
- No allegation has been made, nor any evidence presented, that the petitioner caused or contributed to the delay in trial.
- The trial has remained inconclusive despite repeated directions from this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Procedural History
- 30.09.2018: Petitioner arrested and lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur.
- 19.01.2019: Co-accused Kishan Singh granted bail by Coordinate Bench.
- 16.12.2024: Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated direction to conclude trial on priority basis.
- 04.05.2026: Fifth bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS before the High Court.
- 04.05.2026: Order passed by Justice Kuldeep Mathur allowing bail.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought release on bail on the grounds of prolonged detention without trial, violation of Article 21, and the fact that the delay was not attributable to him. He requested personal bond and surety conditions as appropriate.
The Legal Issue
Can an undertrial accused, detained for over eight years without trial completion and where the delay is clearly not attributable to him, be granted bail on the ground that his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 has been infringed?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned Senior Advocate Anand Purohit submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in custody since 30.09.2018, with no progress in trial despite multiple directives from this Court and the Supreme Court. He emphasized that the prosecution’s evidence is complete, the co-accused has been released on bail, and the petitioner has not caused any delay. He relied on the principle that Article 21 guarantees the right to a speedy trial and that prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to a violation of personal liberty.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor, Narendra Gehlot, opposed the bail application but conceded that the petitioner had been in custody for over eight years and could not dispute that the delay in trial was due to procedural reasons and not attributable to the petitioner. He offered no substantive counter to the claim of violation of Article 21.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the duration of detention, the nature of the charges, and the conduct of the trial. It noted that the petitioner has been in custody for more than eight years without a concluded trial, despite repeated judicial directives to expedite proceedings. The Court observed that the prosecution’s evidence has been fully recorded, and the co-accused has already been released on bail, indicating no unique risk of flight or tampering by the petitioner.
"Prima facie, the delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner, and thus, the fundamental right of the petitioner to a speedy trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, can be said to have been infringed."
The Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is an essential component of Article 21, and that judicial inaction cannot be used to justify continued incarceration. It held that the burden of proving that the delay is attributable to the accused lies with the prosecution, which failed to discharge it. The Court further clarified that its observations were strictly for the purpose of bail adjudication and would not prejudice the trial court’s eventual findings on merits.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court allowed the bail application under Section 483 BNSS and ordered the release of Shaukat S/o Noor Mohmad on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must appear before the court on every hearing date. If he absconds or seeks unnecessary adjournments, the prosecution may apply for cancellation of bail. The Court directed that its observations shall not prejudice the trial court’s assessment of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay Beyond Reasonable Time Triggers Bail
- Practitioners may now invoke Article 21 to seek bail in cases where undertrial detention exceeds five to six years without trial conclusion, especially if the delay is procedural.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the accused caused the delay; silence or non-resistance by the State is sufficient to trigger bail.
Co-Accused Bail Is a Relevant Factor
- Grant of bail to co-accused under identical circumstances weakens the prosecution’s argument for continued detention and supports the accused’s claim for parity.
- Courts are likely to view differential treatment as arbitrary unless justified by distinct conduct or risk factors.
Judicial Directions Are Binding, Not Advisory
- Repeated directions from higher courts to conclude trials must be treated as mandatory. Failure to comply by the trial court cannot be used to justify continued incarceration.
- This judgment establishes a precedent for invoking Article 21 not just for systemic delays, but for specific, documented judicial inaction.
Bail Is Not a Merits Determination
- Courts must separate the bail inquiry from the trial’s merits. The focus is solely on liberty, delay, and fairness.
- This prevents the misuse of bail denial as a punitive tool against accused persons awaiting trial.
