Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Supreme Court Of India
Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India before Hon’ble Justice AJAY RASTOGI &amp; Hon’ble Justice ABHAY S. OKA in the matter of ASHIM @ ASIM KUMAR HARANATH BHATTACHARYA vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).   1525     OF 2021] on 01.12.2021. 
The facts of the case were that an FIR against the appellate was lodged under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122 of the IPC, Section 25(1A)   of the   Arms   Act,   1959, and   Section   5   of the   Explosive Substances Act, 1908 on 01.03.2021 and the charges were framed after 7 years of filing the charge sheet. The appellate is currently 74 years old and has already undergone 9.5 years. Thus, applied for post-arrest bail, but the same was denied by the learned trial court and the Hon’ble High court. Thus, the instant appeal is preferred by the appellate.\

The Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India observed that “We have to balance the nature of crime in reference to which the appellant is facing a trial.   At the same time, the period of incarceration which has been suffered and the likely period within which the trial can be expected to be completed, as is informed to this Court that the statement of PW­1/de­facto complainant has still not been completed and there are 298 prosecution witnesses in the calendar of witnesses although the respondent has stated in its counter-affidavit that it may examine only 100 to 105 witnesses but indeed may take its own time to conclude the trial.   This fact certainly cannot be ignored that the appellant is in custody since 6th July, 2012 and has completed nine and half years of incarceration as an undertrial prisoner.”

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India held that liberty guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial is imperative and the undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India directed the learned trial court to grant post-arrest bail to the appellate.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts of the case were that an FIR against the appellate was lodged under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122 of the IPC, Section 25(1A)   of the   Arms   Act,   1959, and   Section   5   of the   Explosive Substances Act, 1908 on 01.03.2021 and the charges were framed after 7 years of filing the charge sheet. The appellate is currently 74 years old and has already undergone 9.5 years. Thus, applied for post-arrest bail, but the same was denied by the learned trial court and the Hon’ble High court. Thus, the instant appeal is preferred by the appellate.\ 
The Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India observed that “We have to balance the nature of crime in reference to which the appellant is facing a trial.   At the same time, the period of incarceration which has been suffered and the likely period within which the trial can be expected to be completed, as is informed to this Court that the statement of PW­1/de­facto complainant has still not been completed and there are 298 prosecution witnesses in the calendar of witnesses although the respondent has stated in its counter-affidavit that it may examine only 100 to 105 witnesses but indeed may take its own time to conclude the trial.   This fact certainly cannot be ignored that the appellant is in custody since 6th July, 2012 and has completed nine and half years of incarceration as an undertrial prisoner.”

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India held that liberty guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial is imperative and the undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India directed the learned trial court to grant post-arrest bail to the appellate.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India observed that “We have to balance the nature of crime in reference to which the appellant is facing a trial.   At the same time, the period of incarceration which has been suffered and the likely period within which the trial can be expected to be completed, as is informed to this Court that the statement of PW­1/de­facto complainant has still not been completed and there are 298 prosecution witnesses in the calendar of witnesses although the respondent has stated in its counter-affidavit that it may examine only 100 to 105 witnesses but indeed may take its own time to conclude the trial.   This fact certainly cannot be ignored that the appellant is in custody since 6th July, 2012 and has completed nine and half years of incarceration as an undertrial prisoner.” 
Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India held that liberty guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial is imperative and the undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India directed the learned trial court to grant post-arrest bail to the appellate.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India held that liberty guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial is imperative and the undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail. 
Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India directed the learned trial court to grant post-arrest bail to the appellate.
The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of accused no 6(Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya) out of the total to be rejected by the learned trial Court by Order dated 25 th February 2020 and also by the High Court by Order dated 15 th The FIR No. 138 2012 dated 1st March 2012 was initially lodged under Sections 120B 121 121A 122 of the IPC Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act 1959 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 against five accused persons by a de­facto complainant who is an Inspector Special Task Force. Later the case was re­registered as RC No. 01 2012 NIA DLI at PS NIA Headquarters New Delhi for offences under Sections 120B 121 121A 122 IPC Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act 1959 Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 and Sections 18 20 40(1)(b)(c of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act 1967(hereinafter being A­1 to A­5 on 23rd August 2012 and thereafter the first supplementary charge sheet was filed on 27th December 2012 June 2019 for offences under Sections 121 121A 122 120B IPC and under Sections 25(1)(a) 25(1A) 25(1­AA) of Arms Act 1959 who is the de­facto complainant his cross­examination has been 28 2007 dated 11th May 2007)in which he was acquitted by the It has come on record that there are 298 prosecution sheet but it has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the The charges against the accused appellant are undoubtedly factors like the period of incarceration which the appellant has expected to be finally concluded. That apart the appellant is 74 submits that the delay is in no manner be attributable to the after the charge­sheets came to be filed way back in 2012 the the appellant is facing a trial. At the same time the period of this Court that the statement of PW­1 de­facto complainant has indeed may take its own time to conclude the trial. This fact 12. This Court has consistently observed in its numerous and the undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable period of deprivation pending trial appeal cannot be human rights and denial of speedy justice is a threat to public 14. The three­Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India Vs statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43­D(5) of the UAPA being In the above circumstances we are of the view that the 16. Before parting with the order we would like to observe that under the scheme of the Act 2008 the power is vested with the High Court for the trial of scheduled offences designate one or more Courts of Session as Special Courts by notification in the of the Act 2008. At the same time it has been mandated under Section 19 of the Act 2008 that the trial under the Act of any designate one or more Courts as Special Courts for the trial of cases under the Act 2008. Before us the order sheets have been framed in June 2019 and looking to the voluminous record and may take its own time to conclude and indeed the undertrial Bengal from time to time is placed for our perusal but nothing In the given circumstances we consider it appropriate to direct that the State of West Bengal shall take up the issue and 2008. At the same time the Central Government may also in and the mandate as intended by the legislature in its wisdom post­arrest bail by the learned trial Court. We also make it clear 21. Consequently in light of the above the appeal is allowed and 22. Pending application(s) if any stand disposed of 23. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Secretary State of West