Supreme Court of India
TAPAS KUMAR PALITversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 222
- Decided
- 13 February 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
An accused, even in serious offences, is entitled to bail when the trial has been unduly delayed, infringing the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, and the prosecution cannot rely on an excessive number of witnesses to deny bail.
Summary
The appellant was arrested in March 2020 after his vehicle was intercepted and items allegedly linked to Naxalite activities were recovered. He has been in judicial custody for five years, with the trial still ongoing and only 42 of the planned 100 witnesses examined, some of whom have turned hostile. The central issue was whether he was entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences, given the prolonged delay violating his constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Supreme Court held that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental and that an excessive number of witnesses should not be used to justify indefinite detention. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, and granted bail with specific conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences due to the prolonged delay in trial.
- Whether the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates bail when trial delays are excessive.
- Whether the prosecution's intention to examine a large number of witnesses justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the High Court erred in denying bail on the basis of the seriousness of the alleged crimes.
Legislation cited
- Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005s. 8(2), s. 8(3), s. 8(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 149, s. 201, s. 34
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s. 10, s. 13, s. 17, s. 22-A, s. 22-C, s. 38(1)(2), s. 40
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Appellant in judicial custody for 5 years, no certainty as regards the time likely to take in conclusion of the trial. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail. Headnotes† Bail – Entitlement to – Delay in trial – Constitution of India – Prevention Act, 1967 – Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 – Penal Code, 1860 – FIR against appellant under the aforesaid Acts – Trial in progress – Out of 100 witnesses, 42 witnesses examined – Bail denied by High Court – Challenge to:
Subjects
Article 21 of the Constitution of IndiaRight to speedy trialBailDelay in trialTrial in progressLong trialsSeriousness of the crimeNo antecedentsPanch witnesses hostileIndefinite delay in conclusion of trialUnder trial prisonerExamination of the witnessesLarge number of witnessesPublic ProsecutorSpecial Judge (NIA)
Judgment
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 630 : 2025 INSC 222
Tapas Kumar Palit
v.
State of Chhattisgarh
(Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2025)
14 February 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant in judicial custody for 5 years, no certainty as regards the
time likely to take in conclusion of the trial. Whether the appellant
is entitled to bail.
Headnotes†
Bail – Entitlement to – Delay in trial – Constitution of India –
Article 21 – Right to speedy trial – Unlawful Activities Prevention
Act, 1967 – Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam,
2005 – Penal Code, 1860 – FIR against appellant under the
aforesaid Acts – Trial in progress – Out of 100 witnesses, 42
witnesses examined – Bail denied by High Court – Challenge to:
Held: Howsoever serious a crime may be, the accused has a
fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution – Appellant has been in custody as an under trial
prisoner since March 2020 – He has no other antecedents – The
panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama have also turned
hostile – Out of 100 witnesses, only 42 witnesses have been
examined – There is no certainty as regards the time likely to be
consumed to complete the recording of the oral evidence – If an
accused gets a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years
in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then his right to have a speedy trial
u/Article 21 is infringed – Impugned order set aside – Appellant
granted bail. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 10 , 14, 16]
Examination of the witnesses – Large number of witnesses,
everyone need not be examined to establish one particular
fact – Public Prosecutor to exercise discretion wisely:
Held: Where the number of witnesses is large, it is not necessary
that everyone should be produced – It results in indefinite delay
in conclusion of trial – Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 631
Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh
discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned –
Role of the Special Judge (NIA), discussed. [Paras 13, 14]
Long trials – Effect on accused – Discussed. [Para 14]
Case Law Cited
Malak Khan v. Emperor, AIR 1946 Privy Council 16 – referred to.
List of Acts
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967; Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan
Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Right to speedy trial; Bail; Delay
in trial; Trial in progress; Long trials; Seriousness of the crime; No
antecedents; Panch witnesses hostile; Indefinite delay in conclusion
of trial; Under trial prisoner; Examination of the witnesses; Large
number of witnesses; Public Prosecutor; Special Judge (NIA).
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
738 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2024 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRA No. 1951 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sameer Shrivastava, Ms. Yashika Varshney, Ms. Palak Mathur,
Dr. Sangeeta Verma
Advs. for the Respondents:
Abhishek Pandey, Prashant Kumar Umrao
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the
High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur dated 16.02.2024 in Criminal
632 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appeal No.1951 of 2023 by which the High Court dismissed the
Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant herein (original accused)
and thereby declined to release him on bail in connection with
Sessions Case No.32/2020 arising from the First Information Report
bearing no.9/2020 dated 24th March, 2020 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C
respectively of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (for short
“the UAPA”), Sections 8(2), (3) and (5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh
Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and Sections 120B, 201 and 149
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein on 24th March,
2020 was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration no. CG-07/AH-
6555. The police had information that the above numbered vehicle is
to pass by and the same is carrying articles ordinarily used relating
in the Naxalite Activities. Accordingly, the vehicle was intercepted.
4. The search was undertaken and the following articles were recovered
from the car alleged to be in conscious possession of the appellant
herein:-
(i) 95 pair of shoes
(ii) green black printed cloth
(iii) two bundles of electric wire each of 100 metere
(iv) LED lens and
(v) walki talki and other articles.
5. The appellant was arrested on the very same date i.e. 24th March,
2020. At the end of the investigation charge-sheet came to be filed.
6. The trial is in progress. Till this date the prosecution has been able
to examine 42 witnesses. The prosecution intends to examine as
many as 100 witnesses. We are conscious of the Order passed by
us taking the view that once the trial commences and the witnesses
are being examined then in serious crimes like murder, dacoity, rape,
etc, the Court ordinarily should not exercise its discretion for the
purpose of grant of bail, more particularly, looking into the evidence
which has come on record.
7. However, this is a case in which the appellant is in custody as
an under trial prisoner since 24th March, 2020. He has no other
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 633
Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh
antecedents. The panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama have
also turned hostile.
8. It’s been now 5 years that he is in judicial custody. The learned
counsel appearing for the State has no idea as regards the time
likely to be consumed to complete the recording of the oral evidence.
9. In such circumstances, we are left with no other option but to order
release of the appellant on bail. We do not undermine the seriousness
of the crime that has been alleged.
10. However, many times we have made ourselves very clear that
howsoever serious a crime may be the accused has a fundamental
right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
11. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe as to why the
Public Prosecutor wants to examine 100 witnesses. Who are these
100 witnesses? We are aware that it is the public prosecutor who
could be said to be in-charge of the trial and he has to decide who
is to be examined and who is to be dropped. But at the same time,
no useful purpose would be served if 10 witnesses are examined
to establish one particular fact.
12. The aforesaid results in indefinite delay in conclusion of trial. It is
expected of the Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion
in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned.
13. Where the number of witnesses is large, it is not, in our opinion,
necessary that everyone should be produced. In this connection, we
may refer to Malak Khan vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 Privy Council 16]
where their Lordships observed as follows at page 19:-
“It is no doubt very important that, as a general rule, all
Crown witnesses should be called to testify at the hearing
of a prosecution, but important as it is, there is no obligation
compelling counsel for the prosecution to call all witnesses
who speak to facts which the Crown desire to prove.
Ultimately it is a matter for the discretion of counsel for the
prosecution and though a Court ought, and no doubt will,
take into consideration the absence of witnesses whose
testimony would be expected, it must judge the evidence
as a whole and arrive at its conclusion accordingly taking
into consideration the persuasiveness of the testimony
634 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
given in the light of such criticism as may be levelled at
the absence of possible witnesses.”
14. In this regard, the role of the Special Judge (NIA) would also
assume importance. The Special Judge should inquire with the
Special Public Prosecutor why he intends to examine a particular
witness if such witness is going to depose the very same thing that
any other witness might have deposed earlier. We may sound as if
laying some guidelines, but time has come to consider this issue of
delay and bail in its true and proper perspective. If an accused is
to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail
as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his
right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has
been infringed. The stress of long trials on accused persons – who
remain innocent until proven guilty – can also be significant. Accused
persons are not financially compensated for what might be a lengthy
period of pre-trial incarceration. They may also have lost a job or
accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships
while incarcerated, and spent a considerable amount of money
on legal fees. If an accused person is found not guilty, they have
likely endured many months of being stigmatized and perhaps even
ostracized in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with
their own resources.
15. We would say that delays are bad for the accused and extremely
bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our
justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their
Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools
for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently.
16. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The
impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant
is ordered to be released on bail forthwith subject to terms and
conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.
17. However, we direct that the appellant shall not enter into the revenue
limits of district Kanker, State of Chhattisgarh. He shall appear
on-line on each date of the hearing before the trial. It is only in the
last when his further statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is
to be recorded, he shall personally remain present before the Trial
Court. For this limited purpose, he shall enter into district Kanker.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 635
Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh
18. We make it clear that if the appellant commits breach of the condition
in any form as imposed by us, the bail shall stand automatically
cancelled.
19. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 21 of the Constitution of India"Sign in to search