High Court holds that unreasonable delay in trial and five-year custody breaches right to life and personal liberty, upholding established speedy-trial jurisprudence and serving as binding authority for bail applications in delayed prosecutions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM(M)/954/2025 of JAYANTA HALDER @ RAKESH HALDER Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL |
| CNR | WBCHCA0304322025 |
| Date of Registration | 03-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Constitutional Law (Article 21) |
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged pre-trial detention without reasonable trial progress violates Article 21 and warrants bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The petitioner had been in custody for over five years while only 12 out of 32 witnesses were examined, with a remote possibility of trial conclusion in the near future. In such circumstances, continued detention would infringe the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, bail was granted on the touchstone of Article 21, balancing the need to protect personal liberty against the interests of justice. The court imposed conditions to safeguard the trial process while respecting the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that an inordinate delay in trial progress—five years of custody with many witnesses unexamined—triggers the right to speedy trial under Article 21 and justifies bail.
- Illustrates the High Court’s willingness to invoke inherent constitutional jurisdiction (Section 483 BNS Sanhita) when trial pendency becomes unreasonable.
- Reinforces that earlier refusal of bail does not preclude grant if the trial remains unduly delayed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner’s bail plea was earlier rejected on 06/01/2021, with a direction to the trial court to expedite.
- Trial has made minimal progress: 12 out of 32 witnesses examined over more than five years.
- Given the remote possibility of concluding the trial soon, continued detention would violate Article 21’s guarantee of a speedy trial.
- The court exercised its constitutional and inherent jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNS Sanhita to grant bail, subject to stringent conditions to protect trial integrity.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Custodial detention for over five years without substantive trial progress.
- Continued incarceration would breach Article 21 and amount to abuse of process.
Respondent (State & Victim)
- Opposed bail, despite slow trial, on grounds that serious charges under IPC and Arms Act remain pending.
Factual Background
The petitioner, arrested on 20 June 2020 under Section 320 IPC and Sections 25(B)/(a)/27 of the Arms Act, has remained in custody for over five years. His bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was earlier refused on 6 January 2021, with a direction to expedite the trial. Despite this, only 12 of 32 witnesses have been examined, and the trial court shows no immediate prospect of concluding the trial.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Inherent power of High Court to grant bail in aid of justice.
- Article 21, Constitution of India: Right to life and personal liberty includes the right to a speedy trial.
- Relevant penal provisions: Section 320 IPC (Compoundable offences), Sections 25(B)/(a)/27 Arms Act.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed — The court applies established speedy-trial and bail principles under Article 21.