Undertrials In Jail For Long Should Get Bail Even If Offence Serious: Bombay HC
Undertrials in Jail for Long Period Should Get Bail Even If Offence Is Serious: Bombay HC
1. Introduction
The right to a speedy trial and reasonable liberty is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system. Despite this, many undertrial prisoners remain lodged in jail for extended periods, sometimes longer than the maximum sentence prescribed for their alleged offence. This issue is especially critical in serious offence cases where bail is often denied.
The Bombay High Court has repeatedly emphasized that prolonged detention of undertrials violates their fundamental rights and that bail must be considered even in serious offences if the undertrial has been in custody for a long duration.
2. Legal and Constitutional Background
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a fair and speedy trial.
Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides for the release of undertrials on bail if they have been in custody for more than half of the maximum sentence.
The Supreme Court and various High Courts have stressed that the presumption of innocence applies to undertrials, and custody should not become punitive before conviction.
3. Bombay High Court’s Stand
The Bombay High Court has adopted a progressive and humane approach toward bail applications of undertrials detained for long periods.
Key points laid down by the Bombay High Court:
Long incarceration before trial is unjustified and violates fundamental rights.
Bail should be granted if the undertrial has already undergone detention exceeding half the maximum sentence for the alleged offence, even if the offence is serious.
Courts should balance the right of the accused with the interest of justice and public safety.
Prolonged undertrial detention often amounts to punishment without trial.
4. Relevant Case Laws
a) Rohit Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra (2015), Bombay HC
The Court held that prolonged undertrial detention violates the right to personal liberty.
Even in serious offences, the Court can grant bail if the accused has undergone significant jail time.
Emphasized that delay in trial should not be a tool for punitive detention.
b) Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), Supreme Court
Although not Bombay HC, this landmark case laid the foundation.
The Supreme Court ordered the release of undertrials languishing in jail for long periods without trial.
Held that speedy trial and bail rights are essential and prolonged detention violates Article 21.
c) Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986), Supreme Court
The Court stressed the inhumanity of prolonged undertrial detention.
Directed better prison conditions and urged speedy disposal of cases.
d) State of Maharashtra v. Raghunath Manohar Chaudhari (2000), Bombay HC
The Court held that even serious offence accused can be granted bail if their trial is delayed and they have spent a long time in custody.
Detention beyond reasonable periods is against the spirit of criminal justice.
e) Sanjay Dutt v. Union of India (1994), Bombay HC
Emphasized that prolonged pre-trial custody should not be allowed to become a substitute for punishment.
Bail must be considered with a humane outlook, balancing public interest and individual rights.
5. Guiding Principles for Granting Bail to Long-Term Undertrials
| Factor | Bombay High Court View |
|---|---|
| Duration of Custody | Bail favorable if custody exceeds half of maximum sentence |
| Seriousness of Offence | Does not bar bail if other conditions are met |
| Likelihood of Trial Delay | Prolonged delay favors bail |
| Risk of Flight or Evidence Tampering | Considered, but not sole reason to deny bail |
| Rehabilitation and Conduct in Jail | Positive factors in bail consideration |
6. Conclusion
The Bombay High Court takes a pro-accused, rights-based approach towards bail for undertrial prisoners detained for long durations. Even when facing serious charges, the right to liberty and speedy trial demands bail consideration if the accused has already spent a significant time in custody.
This approach is aimed at preventing punishment before conviction, ensuring fairness in the justice delivery system, and upholding constitutional safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments