Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether prolonged custody and the improbability of early conclusion of trial justified grant of bail notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged economic offences. (ii) Whether Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 could be construed as a mandate to continue incarceration until completion of trial in a case involving grave charges.
Issue (i): Whether prolonged custody and the improbability of early conclusion of trial justified grant of bail notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged economic offences.
Analysis: The right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 remains available to an undertrial, and pre-trial incarceration cannot be allowed to become punishment. Seriousness of the allegation is relevant, but it does not by itself justify continued detention where the investigation is complete, the case is documentary in nature, the charge has not yet been framed, and the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable time. The long custody already undergone and the voluminous record, together with the large number of witnesses, weighed in favour of release on bail.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellants and bail was warranted on the facts.
Issue (ii): Whether Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 could be construed as a mandate to continue incarceration until completion of trial in a case involving grave charges.
Analysis: Section 479 was construed as a liberty-enhancing provision intended to decongest prisons, not as a restrictive mandate forbidding bail until the accused completes one-half or one-third of the sentence in every case. Its operation does not exclude the ordinary bail jurisdiction of constitutional courts, and it must be read consistently with the protection of personal liberty under Article 21. The provision therefore could not be used to deny bail merely because the alleged offences carried severe punishment.
Conclusion: The contention based on Section 479 was rejected and did not bar grant of bail.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the appellants were directed to be released on bail subject to conditions, without any expression on the merits of the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an undertrial has undergone substantial incarceration and the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable time, continued detention offends Article 21, and even in serious economic offences the constitutional courts may grant bail notwithstanding stringent statutory thresholds.