Prolonged incarceration and stalled trial violate Article 21, warranting bail despite serious charges.

The appellant was prosecuted in connection with Crime No. 315/2022 registered at Police Station Ambikapur for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506, 109, 115 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged that on 11.10.2021 the appellant took the prosecutrix to recover hidden treasure by claiming to possess supernatural powers as a tantrik , and sexually assaulted her.

The FIR was lodged on 13.04.2022, and the appellant was arrested on 14.06.2022.

His bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge by order dated 21.05.2026.

At the time of consideration of the appeal, only one witness had been examined and the prosecutrix’s evidence was still in progress.

The appellant also relied on the bail granted to co-accused Noor Jahan and on bail granted to him in another case involving similar allegations in Criminal Appeal No. 1360 of 2026.

The State opposed bail on the ground of the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing evidence of the prosecutrix.

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, despite the serious allegations under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act?

Whether the appellant’s prolonged incarceration, coupled with the slow progress of the trial and the continued recording of the prosecutrix’s evidence, justified granting bail on the ground of infringement of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Whether the appellant’s release on bail in another case involving similar allegations was a relevant circumstance supporting the grant of bail in the present case?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to consider the challenge to the order refusing bail.

The prosecution invoked Section 376(2)(n) IPC concerning repeated rape, along with the other IPC provisions and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court applied the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21, holding that prolonged incarceration without meaningful progress in the trial may justify bail, even where the accusations are serious.

Relying on Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810, the Court reiterated that the seriousness of the offence cannot by itself override an established infringement of the accused’s right to a speedy trial.

The Court also considered the period of detention, the stage of trial, and the appellant’s bail in another case involving similar allegations as relevant bail considerations.

The Court found that the appellant had remained in custody since 14.06.2022, while the trial had made limited progress and the prosecutrix’s evidence was still ongoing.

Applying the principle in Sahil Manoj Machare , the Court held that the prolonged detention and slow progress of the trial attracted the Article 21 consideration of speedy trial, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations.

The Court further noted that the appellant had already been granted bail in Criminal Appeal No. 1360 of 2026 in a case involving similar allegations, which supported a consistent approach in favour of bail.

Having balanced these circumstances against the State’s objection, the Court concluded that continued incarceration was not justified and that the appellant could be released subject to stringent conditions.

The appellant, Shubham Khairwar @ Dayaram Khairwar, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The bail conditions required him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on dates fixed by the trial court, to comply with proceedings relating to securing his presence, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The trial court was requested to make an earnest effort to conclude the trial expeditiously.