The prolonged incarceration of an undertrial accused, without reasonable certainty of trial completion, violates Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 8) Courts must balance the severity of the crime with the accused’s right to liberty and a speedy trial. (Para 9) Prisons are overcrowded, and pre-trial detention beyond a reasonable period amounts to unjustified punishment before conviction. (Para 10) The Supreme Court has consistently held that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, except in cases of flight risk or witness tampering. (Para 12) The Applicant’s co-accused had been granted bail, and parity demanded similar treatment. (Para 14) Medical conditions such as HIV should be considered while granting bail, as prisons may not have adequate medical facilities. (Para 28)

The Court granted bail to the Applicant solely on the ground of long incarceration and delay in trial. It was held that detaining an undertrial prisoner for over 9 years without trial violated his fundamental rights under Article 21. The Court emphasized that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception, citing multiple Supreme Court precedents. The Applicant was directed to be released on a bail bond of ₹50,000 with sureties, with conditions to attend the trial and not leave Maharashtra.

Major Acts & Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439 (Special Powers of High Court or Court of Session for Granting Bail)
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 (Murder), 397 (Robbery or Dacoity with Attempt to Cause Death or Grievous Hurt), and 34 (Common Intention)
• Indian Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 4 and 25 (Possession and Use of Prohibited Arms)
• Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – Sections 37(1) and 135 (Prohibition on Carrying Arms in Public Places)

Subjects:

Bail Application – Long Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Delay in Trial – Personal Liberty – Fundamental Rights – Overcrowded Prisons – HIV Treatment – Judicial Discretion

Nature of the Litigation:

• The Applicant filed a Bail Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for release in connection with Crime No. 45/2016 registered at Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai.
• The Applicant had been in custody for over 9 years and 25 days while awaiting trial.

Who Approached the Court & What Remedy Was Sought?

• The Applicant, Ganesh Madhukar Mendarkar, sought regular bail on the grounds of long incarceration and health conditions (HIV treatment).

Reason for Filing the Case:

• The Applicant was arrested on January 20, 2016, for charges under Sections 302, 397, and 34 of the IPC, along with violations under the Indian Arms Act and Maharashtra Police Act.
• The trial commenced in 2018, but only four out of 36 witnesses were examined.
• The other three co-accused had already been granted bail.

What Had Already Been Decided Until Now?

• Despite several years of custody, the trial had not progressed significantly, and the prosecution admitted that not all witnesses would be examined.
• The Court considered the constitutional mandate of the right to a speedy trial and the Applicant’s prolonged detention.

Issues Before the Court:

a. Whether the prolonged incarceration of the Applicant, despite trial delays, justified the grant of bail?
b. Whether Article 21 of the Constitution of India was violated due to the unreasonable delay in trial?
c. Whether the Applicant’s medical condition (HIV) should be considered for bail?

Submissions/Arguments:

Applicant's Counsel (Mr. Jagtap) Submitted That:

1. The Applicant had been in custody for 9 years and 25 days, violating his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
2. The trial had significantly stalled since 2018, with only four witnesses examined out of 36.
3. The Applicant was suffering from HIV and was undergoing treatment in prison.
4. The three co-accused had already been granted bail, and parity should apply to the Applicant.

Prosecution (Ms. Bajoria, APP) Argued That:

1. The offense was grave (murder and armed robbery), and bail should be denied on this ground.
2. However, the prosecution conceded that the trial had been significantly delayed and that not all 36 witnesses would be examined.
3. The prosecution assured the Court that the trial could be concluded within three months, but no concrete timeline was provided.