Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Digambar Uddhav Supekar, filed a second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking release in connection with C.R. No.963 of 2020 registered at Satara City Police Station for offences under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4, 6, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The first bail application was withdrawn with liberty to file after six months if no substantial trial progress. The applicant had been incarcerated since 12 December 2020, i.e., for about 3 years and 10 months. The charge-sheet was filed on 7 February 2021, and charges were framed on 22 August 2022. However, only one panch witness had been examined, and the prosecution proposed to examine over 15 witnesses, indicating that the trial would take considerable time. The applicant was a young person, aged about 20 at the time of arrest, and his father had passed away during custody, leaving his mother without support. The prosecution opposed bail citing the seriousness of the offence and relied on the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC and medical reports. The court acknowledged the prima facie case but held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated due to the long incarceration and lack of trial progress. Citing Supreme Court decisions in Hussainara Khatoon and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, the court observed that if the State cannot ensure a speedy trial, it should not oppose bail on the ground of the crime's seriousness. The court found that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and was not a flight risk. Accordingly, the court granted bail with stringent conditions, including a PR bond of Rs.15,000 with sureties, a prohibition on entering Beed district, weekly reporting to Shevgaon Police Station, and conditions against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Long Incarceration - Section 439 CrPC, Article 21 Constitution of India - Applicant incarcerated for 3 years 10 months, trial not concluded with only one witness examined out of more than 15 - Held that right to speedy trial is a facet of Article 21 and long incarceration without substantial progress in trial entitles the accused to bail, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence (Paras 8-11). B) Criminal Law - Bail - POCSO Act - Sections 4, 6, 12 POCSO Act, 2012 - Seriousness of offence - Court noted prima facie case but granted bail due to long incarceration and delay in trial - Held that stringent conditions can be imposed to balance interests (Paras 7, 12). C) Constitutional Law - Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 Constitution of India - State's obligation to ensure speedy trial - If State cannot provide speedy trial, it should not oppose bail on ground of seriousness of crime - Held that Article 21 applies irrespective of nature of crime (Paras 9-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration and violation of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, despite the seriousness of the offence under the POCSO Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicant on bail in connection with C.R. No.963 of 2020 registered with Satara City Police Station, subject to conditions including furnishing a PR bond of Rs.15,000 with one or two local sureties, not entering Beed district, furnishing cell phone number and address, reporting to Shevgaon Police Station once a week, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Law Points
- Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
- Bail under Section 439 CrPC
- Long incarceration as ground for bail
- Factors for granting bail in serious offences
