The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dismissed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, but issued a binding direction to expedite a stalled criminal trial due to prolonged judicial vacancy. The applicant, in custody since October 2024, sought regular bail on grounds of undue delay, with the trial court currently without a presiding judge. While bail was not granted, the court mandated the transfer of the case to an active court and ordered the earliest possible conclusion of proceedings.
The Verdict
The applicant did not secure bail, but achieved a significant procedural victory. The High Court dismissed the second bail application as withdrawn, but directed the District & Sessions Judge of Narmadapuram to immediately transfer the pending trial to a court with a presiding judge and conclude it at the earliest. The core legal holding is that prolonged trial stagnation due to judicial vacancy constitutes a violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21, warranting judicial intervention even in the absence of a bail grant.
Background & Facts
The applicant, Jeeshan Ali, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 560/2024 registered at Police Station Sohagpur, District Narmadapuram, for offences under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2008. He has been in custody since October 1, 2024. His first bail application under Section 483 BNS was dismissed on merits by this court on September 3, 2025. The trial, designated as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jeeshan Ali (ST No. 21/2024), has remained pending without any progress due to the absence of a presiding judge in the trial court. No trial dates have been held since the filing of charges. The applicant’s counsel argued that the indefinite delay rendered the continued detention unjustified. In the alternative, counsel requested that the court issue directions to expedite the trial, allowing the applicant to withdraw the pending bail application. The State did not oppose this alternative prayer.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court may intervene to expedite a criminal trial when prolonged judicial vacancy renders proceedings effectively stalled, even if the accused does not qualify for bail under statutory criteria. Does such delay, unaddressed by the trial court, constitute a violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21, justifying judicial direction absent a bail grant?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel contended that the trial has been suspended for over a year due to the non-appointment of a presiding judge, rendering the accused’s detention arbitrary and violative of Article 21. He cited the principle that undue delay in trial amounts to denial of justice and cited precedents where courts have intervened to transfer cases to avoid stagnation. He emphasized that Section 483 BNS, while governing bail, does not preclude the court from exercising its inherent powers under Article 226 to ensure timely adjudication. The alternative prayer for transfer and expeditious trial was framed as a reasonable compromise to avoid prolonged incarceration without trial.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose the withdrawal of the bail application. It accepted the factual position regarding the judicial vacancy and agreed that directions for transfer and expeditious trial were warranted. No substantive counter-arguments were presented, effectively conceding the need for judicial intervention.
The Court's Analysis
The court acknowledged that while the applicant did not meet the threshold for regular bail under Section 483 BNS, the circumstances of the case demanded a remedy beyond mere dismissal. The court held that the right to a speedy trial is an essential component of Article 21 and cannot be rendered illusory by administrative inaction. The prolonged absence of a presiding judge, resulting in a complete standstill of proceedings, was deemed a systemic failure that the High Court must address.
"The trial is on hold not due to procedural or evidentiary reasons, but due to administrative neglect. This cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely without judicial oversight."
The court relied on its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions to the District & Sessions Judge to transfer the case to a functioning court. The court emphasized that such directions are not an interference with trial court autonomy but a necessary corrective to uphold constitutional guarantees. The court further noted that the State’s concurrence reinforced the reasonableness of the direction. The dismissal of the bail application as withdrawn was conditioned upon the issuance of this direction, ensuring that the applicant’s grievance was not left unaddressed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a clear precedent for courts to intervene proactively when trials are stalled due to judicial vacancies. Practitioners representing accused persons in prolonged pending cases should now routinely raise judicial vacancy as a ground for seeking transfer or expedited trial, even if bail is not immediately obtainable. The ruling reinforces that delay caused by administrative failure, not litigant conduct, is actionable under Article 21. Future bail applications under Section 483 BNS may now be accompanied by a prayer for trial transfer, strengthening the applicant’s position. However, this direction applies only where the delay is demonstrably due to vacancy and not due to adjournments, non-appearance, or procedural delays caused by the accused. It does not create a general right to bail but affirms the judiciary’s duty to prevent trial stagnation.
