HC reprimands authorities for holding undertrial in jail for over 4 years despite bail

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sharply criticised the prolonged detention of an undertrial prisoner for more than four years, despite his entitlement to default bail.

Advertisement

In a scathing indictment of procedural lapses, the court also condemned the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and jail authorities for their failure to ensure his release, calling it a blatant violation of fundamental rights and due process.

The petitioner, accused of offenses carrying a maximum punishment of five years, had already spent four years, one month, and 20 days in custody.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar pointed out that the trial had not even commenced, despite the complaint being filed in 2022.

Expressing its anguish, the Bench observed: "What pricks the conscience of this court is that despite the fact that the complaint was filed in the year 2022 and the petitioner has been incarcerated for over four years, the trial is yet to commence.

This inaction has effectively converted pre-trial detention into a punitive sentence, disregarding the bedrock principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty."

Stringent bail conditions

Justice Brar also noted that the petitioner, granted bail, was unable to secure his release due to the "lamentably disproportional" and "onerous" conditions imposed by the lower court.

These included furnishing two surety bonds of Rs 1.10 crore each and a bank guarantee of Rs 55 lakh.

Condemning such conditions, the court asserted: "A surety bond of such exorbitant value cannot be deemed reasonable in good conscience, as it effectively places a monetary price on liberty, which is inherently invaluable. Such an approach is antithetical to the principles of justice and fairness."

Justice Brar asserted that bail, meant to ensure an accused person's presence at trial, should not be used as a tool to deny liberty.

The court held that imposing excessive financial conditions for default bail violated the fundamental right to personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"Judicial custody is preventive in nature and not punitive. Therefore, deprivation of liberty must not be used as a form of punishment but rather as a measure of last resort to secure the ends of justice," the court observed.

Admonition of DLSA, Jail authorities

Justice Brar virtually castigated the DLSA for its apathy, noting that efforts were not made to assist the petitioner in securing his release, nor was any socio-economic report prepared to seek relaxation of bail conditions.

"Nothing on record indicates whether the DLSA was even aware of the petitioner's circumstances, let alone taking steps to ensure his release. The petitioner has been condemned unheard, languishing in custody for over four years without even the framing of charges. This is a stark negation of his fundamental right to a fair trial," the court stated. Justice Brar added that the petitioner was also entitled to be released under Section 479 of the BNSS mandating the release of undertrial prisoners who had served more than one-third of the maximum prescribed sentence.

"The facts of the present case paint a distressing picture of the criminal justice system's failure to uphold the rights of undertrial prisoners. The failure of the Superintendent of Jail to inform the court of the petitioner's eligibility for bail, as mandated under Section 479(3) of BNSS, resulted in his continued incarceration in clear contravention of the law," the court noted. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in "Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail", Justice Brar asserted that default bail was not just a statutory entitlement but a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution.

"Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not a mere privilege but a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary detention. Any attempt to frustrate it by imposing excessive, unreasonable, or onerous conditions for furnishing bail bonds is nothing but a blatant subversion of the law,” the court asserted.

Holding that the justice system must not "price out" an individual's liberty, Justice Brar reiterated that the fundamental right to life and personal liberty could not be reduced to a privilege contingent upon one's financial capacity. Making it clear that the conditions imposed by the trial court did not meet the "objective standards of reason and justice", Justice Brar directed petitioner Pawan Kumar to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial upon furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs 50,000 with one surety of the like amount.