The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that prolonged pre-trial detention without meaningful progress in trial constitutes a fundamental denial of justice, even in heinous offences. In granting regular bail to an accused detained for over six years, the Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is not subordinate to the gravity of allegations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Anil Santlal Sahu, is accused in Crime No. 66 of 2020 registered at Bhigwan Police Station, Pune, for offences under Sections 307, 376, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, while transporting the first informant on a train, forced her to alight at a remote location, assaulted her neck with a blade with intent to kill, and abandoned her unconscious in a field. The victim was later found by witnesses and hospitalized.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on or about 12.04.2020
- Crime No. 66 of 2020 was registered on 13.04.2020
- The applicant was arrested on 15.04.2020 and has remained in custody since
- The charge sheet was filed on 18.07.2020
- The trial commenced in 2021 and remains ongoing as of May 2026
- The applicant has no prior criminal record or antecedents
- The victim, a minor at the time of incident, has consistently identified the applicant in her statements
Procedural History
- 12.04.2020: Alleged offence committed
- 13.04.2020: Crime registered at Bhigwan Police Station
- 15.04.2020: Applicant arrested and remanded to judicial custody
- 18.07.2020: Charge sheet submitted before the Sessions Court
- 2021: Trial commenced; evidence recording initiated
- 05.05.2026: Criminal Bail Application No. 772 of 2026 filed before Bombay High Court
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail on grounds of six years of continuous incarceration without conclusion of trial, absence of antecedents, and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether prolonged pre-trial detention exceeding six years, with no foreseeable conclusion to trial, justifies the grant of regular bail despite the gravity of offences under Sections 307, 376 IPC and Sections 4, 6 POCSO Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody for over six years without trial conclusion, violating the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. He has no prior criminal history, and there is no allegation of witness tampering or flight risk. The delay is attributable to systemic backlogs, not the applicant’s conduct. Reliance was placed on State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI to argue that undue delay in trial is a compelling ground for bail.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the offences are heinous, involving attempted murder and sexual assault of a minor. The victim’s testimony is crucial and the applicant, if released, may intimidate witnesses or flee. The trial is ongoing and the prosecution is actively presenting evidence. Bail in such cases, it was argued, would undermine public confidence in the justice system.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but emphasized that the right to liberty under Article 21 cannot be indefinitely suspended merely because the charges are grave. The Court noted that the applicant has been in custody for six years without trial conclusion, a period far exceeding the average duration for similar cases. The Court observed that the delay is not attributable to the applicant’s conduct but to systemic delays in the criminal justice process.
"The right to a speedy trial is not a privilege but a constitutional guarantee. When an accused remains incarcerated for over six years without trial conclusion, the scales of justice tip in favour of liberty unless there is a compelling reason to deny bail."
The Court rejected the argument that the nature of the offences alone justifies continued detention, citing Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to affirm that gravity of offence cannot override the presumption of innocence or the right to liberty. The Court also noted the absence of any allegation of witness tampering or attempt to influence the investigation during the six-year period. The Court held that the risk of witness intimidation, while a valid concern, can be adequately mitigated through bail conditions.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted regular bail in Crime No. 66 of 2020 on the following terms: (i) execution of a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties of like amount; (ii) mandatory reporting to the Bhigwan Police Station as and when required; and (iii) strict prohibition against tampering with evidence, contacting the complainant, or influencing any witness. The Court directed compliance within seven days and clarified that the observations made herein shall not influence the Trial Court’s merits-based adjudication.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prolonged Detention Overrides Gravity of Offence
- Practitioners may now invoke Article 21 and Section 439 CrPC to seek bail in cases where trial has exceeded five years without substantial progress
- Courts must conduct a balancing test: duration of detention versus risk of flight or witness tampering
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate why continued detention is necessary beyond a threshold period
Bail Conditions Are Sufficient Safeguards
- Courts should not deny bail on speculative grounds of witness intimidation
- Conditions such as police reporting, no contact with witnesses, and surrender of passports are adequate to mitigate risks
- The mere fact that a case involves a minor or serious injury does not automatically disqualify an accused from bail after prolonged incarceration
Systemic Delays Are Not the Accused’s Burden
- Delays caused by court backlogs, adjournments, or prosecution lassitude cannot be used to justify indefinite detention
- This judgment reinforces that the state bears the responsibility to ensure timely trial, not the accused
- Legal aid lawyers should routinely file bail applications after three years of incarceration in pending trials, especially in non-bailable offences
