The Bombay High Court, in a recent ruling, granted bail to a man accused in a double murder case while emphasizing the significance of the right to a speedy trial. Justice Bharati Dangre, presiding over a single bench, delivered the judgment on September 26, granting bail to Akash Satish Chandalia, who had been arrested in September 2015 by the Lonavala police in Pune district on charges of double murder and conspiracy.
In its order, the court stressed the need to strike a balance between the gravity of the charges faced by the accused and the extended duration of the trial process. It noted that while the seriousness and heinous nature of an offense are important considerations when granting bail, the factor of prolonged incarceration of an accused as an under-trial prisoner also holds significance.
The court highlighted that keeping a person in custody for an indefinite period pending trial violates the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. It emphasized that time and again, the extended incarceration of an accused has been recognized as a justiciable ground to exercise discretion in favor of releasing the accused on bail.
Despite directions to conclude the trial within a reasonable timeframe, the court noted that the trial had not made substantial progress. In such circumstances, the court found no option but to grant bail to the accused.
The court also emphasized the importance of considering the impact of prolonged trials on the accused, particularly if they are eventually acquitted. It stated that a balance must be struck between the seriousness of the charges and the extended trial duration.
Justice Dangre underscored that depriving an individual of personal liberty without ensuring a speedy trial is not in line with Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Access to justice and a speedy trial are fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, and when a timely trial is not feasible, the accused cannot be subjected to prolonged incarceration.
The court added that if an accused has already undergone a significant portion of the proposed sentence during the trial, the court is typically obligated to grant bail, regardless of the gravity of the accusations.
Chandalia’s advocate, Sana Raees Khan, argued that her client had been in custody for nearly eight years, and the trial had yet to conclude. She asserted that indefinite incarceration amounts to a pre-trial conviction and is inconsistent with Article 21 of the Constitution, violating fundamental rights.
The case against Chandalia involves charges under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 302 (murder), and the alleged offense is of a serious nature. The prosecution’s case alleges that Chandalia and a co-accused gangster kidnapped two individuals and fatally assaulted them.
The Bombay High Court’s decision underscores the importance of ensuring a speedy trial and the protection of an individual’s fundamental rights, including the right to personal liberty. It emphasizes that indefinite incarceration pending trial is not in accordance with the principles of justice and the Constitution of India.
