The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and questioned why the Public Prosecutor wanted to examine 100 witnesses and who are such witnesses.

The Apex Court was considering an Appeal challenging the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court declining to release the appellant-accused on bail in a case registered under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA), Sections 8(2), (3) and (5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and Sections 120B, 201 and 149 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan affirmed, “However, many times we have made ourselves very clear that howsoever serious a crime may be the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Factual Background

It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant was travelling in a vehicle allegedly carrying articles ordinarily used in Naxalite Activities. The vehicle was intercepted and a search was undertaken. Some of the recovered articles included 95 pairs of shoes, green black printed cloth, two bundles of electric wire each of 100 metre, LED lens and walkie-talkie. The appellant was arrested on the very same day and a charge sheet came to be filed. The trial is in progress and till now the prosecution has examined 42 witnesses.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that this is a case in which the appellant has been in custody as an under-trial prisoner since March 24, 2020. He has no other antecedents. The panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama have also turned hostile. It has been 5 years that the appellant has been in judicial custody. Noticing that the counsel appearing for the State had no idea as regards the time likely to be consumed to complete the recording of the oral evidence, the Bench held that it had no other option but to order the release of the appellant on bail. “We do not undermine the seriousness of the crime that has been alleged”, it said.

In light of the fact that the prosecution intends to examine as many as 100 witnesses, the Bench said, “Before we close this matter, we would like to observe as to why the Public Prosecutor wants to examine 100 witnesses. Who are these 100 witnesses?” As per the Bench, no useful purpose would be served if 10 witnesses are examined to establish one particular fact.This would result in an indefinite delay in the conclusion of trial. “It is expected of the Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned”, it added. The Bench further held, “Where the number of witnesses is large, it is not, in our opinion, necessary that everyone should be produced. the Court held.

“We may sound as if laying some guidelines, but time has come to consider this issue of delay and bail in its true and proper perspective. If an accused is to get a final verdict after the incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”, it added. The Bench also highlighted that if an accused person is found not guilty, they have likely endured many months of being stigmatized and perhaps even ostracized in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with their resources. “We would say that delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued.”, it said.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered the appellant to be released on bail. “However, we direct that the appellant shall not enter into the revenue limits of district Kanker, State of Chhattisgarh. He shall appear online on each date of the hearing before the trial”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 222]

Click here to read/download Judgment


Supreme CourtJustice JB PardiwalaJustice R MahadevanUAPABail

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.