Man in jail for 4 years without trial, HC says failure of justice system

The High Court here set aside a lower court order asking a man to furnish two bail bonds of Rs 1.10 crore each for release, the condition due to which he remained incarcerated for over four years without a trial. The maximum punishment in the case could only be five years.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar noted that the trial in the case filed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act was yet to commence and the accused’s prolonged incarceration painted a “distressing picture of the criminal justice system’s failure to uphold the rights of undertrial prisoners”.

Holding that the justice system must not “price out” an individual’s liberty, Justice Brar directed petitioner Pawan Kumar’s release upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs 50,000 each with one surety of the like amount. The court also observed that the accused had remained in custody, despite being entitled to a default bail, due to the “lamentably disproportional” and “onerous” conditions imposed by the lower court—two surety bonds of Rs 1.10 crore each and a bank guarantee of Rs 55 lakh.

The court also rapped the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and the jail authorities for failing to ensure his release, terming it a blatant violation of the accused’s fundamental rights. The petitioner, accused of offences carrying a maximum punishment of five years, had already spent four years, one month and 20 days in custody.

“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,” the court added.

Condemning lower court conditions, the HC 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.” The court held that imposing excessive financial conditions for default bail violated the fundamental right to personal liberty 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.

Justice Brar castigated the DLSA for its apathy. “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 added.

It also noted that the petitioner was entitled to release under Section 479 of the BNSS, which mandates the release of undertrials who had served more than one-third of the sentence.