When trial is unduly delayed, bail is a right: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Emphasising that no one should lose liberty due to procedural delays, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused cannot be made to suffer if the State fails to ensure a timely trial. “When a trial is unduly delayed, granting bail is not just an option but a right,” Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed while granting bail to an accused in an NDPS case.

"The right to a speedy trial is not merely a statutory privilege but a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial is an essential component of fair procedure and any unwarranted delay is a valid ground for bail," the court stated.

Justice Kaul asserted pre-trial detention was justified only to secure the presence of an accused at trial and prevent interference with the investigation. “However, when the trial remains stagnant, further incarceration of an accused serves no legitimate purpose and amounts to punitive detention, which is impermissible in law. Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception,” the court added.

The petitioner, seeking bail for the third time, was arrested on January 24, 2023, in connection with FIR registered on January 23, 2023, under the provisions of the NDPS Act at Gobindgarh Mandi police station in Fatehgarh Sahib. He was taken into custody following a disclosure statement allegedly made by co-accused from whom a recovery of 19,590 intoxicant tablets was effected.

The trial did not progress meaningfully despite the passage of considerable time, "It is not in dispute that none of the 47 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far after the charges were framed on September 30, 2023," the court observed.

The State counsel did not dispute the petitioner’s custody period but sought to attribute the delay to factors such as the non-production of the petitioner by the jail authorities on certain dates and administrative exigencies.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the trial had been repeatedly adjourned due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses — who, in this case, were all police officials. The petitioner deserved to be granted bail, particularly since no recovery was made from him.

Weighing the circumstances, the court held that the delay highlighted the need to protect the constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial. As such, the court did not find justification for the petitioner’s further incarceration of the petitioner."

“In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case," the order concluded.