The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that prolonged pre-trial incarceration due to prosecutorial delay violates the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21, even in serious criminal cases. This ruling establishes that the accused cannot be punished for the state’s or complainant’s failure to advance proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Keshav Yadav, was arrested on 13 March 2025 in connection with Crime No. 98/2025 registered at Police Station Morar, Gwalior. He faces charges under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including assault with intent to kill, criminal conspiracy, and use of a licensed firearm. The prosecution alleges that the applicant and co-accused ambushed the complainant, Ajay Singh Rana, near Gosipura Tiraha, dragged him from his vehicle, assaulted him with lathis and a pistol butt, and vandalized his car.
Procedural History
The applicant has filed three prior bail applications:
- First application: Withdrawn on 08.10.2025 with liberty to refile after complainant’s statement examination
- Second application: Withdrawn on 08.12.2025 for similar reasons
- Third application: Present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), filed after evidence of complainant’s persistent non-appearance
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks release on bail, arguing that his continued detention for over nine months - due to the complainant’s failure to appear despite repeated summons and bailable warrants - constitutes a violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether prolonged pre-trial detention, caused solely by the complainant’s unexplained and repeated non-appearance in court, justifies the grant of bail despite the gravity of the alleged offences.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the applicant has been in judicial custody for over nine months without trial progress, attributable entirely to the complainant’s failure to appear. Reliance was placed on Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar to assert that undue delay in trial amounts to arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The order sheet of the trial court, showing issuance of an arrest warrant against the complainant, was cited as proof of malafide delay. It was contended that the applicant’s liberty cannot be held hostage to prosecutorial negligence.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor and complainant’s counsel opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations - including use of a firearm and intent to kill. They argued that gravity of offence outweighs procedural delays and that bail should not be granted merely due to prosecutorial lassitude.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial as an essential component of Article 21, citing Hussainara Khatoon to affirm that justice delayed is justice denied. It noted that the applicant’s detention was not due to any fault of his own, but because the complainant, despite being summoned multiple times and even facing a bailable warrant, failed to appear. The Court observed that the prosecution’s inability to proceed with the trial cannot be a justification for indefinite incarceration of the accused.
"Continued incarceration in such circumstances would amount to deprivation of liberty on uncertain and indefinite grounds."
The Court explicitly declined to evaluate the merits of the case, stating that its decision was based solely on the procedural failure of the prosecution. It emphasized that the right to liberty is not contingent on the efficiency of the complainant or the state’s investigative machinery. The Court held that the balance of convenience and equity lies with the accused, whose liberty has been curtailed for an unreasonable duration without trial.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Court held that prolonged pre-trial detention due to prosecutorial delay violates Article 21, and granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety. The applicant was directed to comply with Section 480(3) of the BNSS.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pre-Trial Delay Can Justify Bail Even in Serious Cases
- Practitioners may now invoke Article 21 to seek bail where trial is stalled by complainant or prosecution inaction
- Delay exceeding six months, unattributable to the accused, becomes a compelling ground for bail
- Courts must assess whether the delay is systemic or attributable to the accused
Complainant’s Non-Appearance Is Not a Neutral Event
- Repeated non-appearance despite summons or bailable warrants constitutes prosecutorial failure
- Courts may issue arrest warrants against complainants without prejudice to the accused’s right to bail
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to explain delays; silence or inaction cannot be ignored
Bail Is Not a Merit-Based Decision in Delayed Cases
- The Court explicitly refused to assess the strength of the prosecution’s case
- Bail decisions in such contexts must be based on procedural fairness, not perceived guilt
- This creates a new procedural avenue for defense counsel to challenge prolonged detention without trial
