Prolonged incarceration due to trial delay violates Article 21, warranting bail despite criminal antecedents.

The applicant filed a third bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding Crime No. 452/2022.

The applicant was arrested on July 22, 2022, following allegations that he and two others intercepted a motorcycle and forcibly took ornaments, a motorcycle, cash, and mobile phones from a couple.

Charges were registered under Sections 392, 413, and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The applicant has remained in judicial custody for approximately 3 years and 7 months.

Previous bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew after witness examinations.

While 17 out of 20 prosecution witnesses have been examined, the trial has been stalled since December 15, 2025, due to a vacancy in the concerned trial court.

The State opposed the bail citing the applicant's four criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the infringement of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the existence of criminal antecedents without previous convictions is sufficient to deny bail when the trial is delayed due to administrative vacancies.

The court primarily considered Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding bail, alongside Sections 392 and 413 of the IPC.

It relied heavily on the constitutional mandate of Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty.

The court applied the principle from Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) and Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), which establishes that a constitutional court can grant bail despite statutory restrictions if an accused's right to a speedy trial is infringed.

It further referenced Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), noting that prolonged incarceration militates against fundamental rights.

The court balanced the gravity of the alleged robbery against the applicant’s 43 months of custody.

It observed that although the State pointed to four criminal antecedents, the applicant had no prior convictions, and his socio-economic status as a 20-year-old labourer made recidivism or fleeing unlikely.

The court emphasized that the trial’s progress was hindered not by the applicant, but by a court vacancy since late 2025, with no immediate prospect of being filled.

Applying the "K.A. Najeeb" doctrine, the court reasoned that statutory restrictions must yield to Article 21 when a trial is inordinately delayed.

Since 17 of 20 witnesses were already examined, the risk of tampering with evidence was deemed minimal.

The court ordered the applicant’s release on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one solvent surety.

Specific conditions were imposed, including: (i) mandatory attendance at all hearings; (ii) a prohibition against committing similar offences; (iii) a prohibition against tampering with evidence or witnesses; and (iv) a requirement to mark presence at the Police Station on the first Saturday of every month until the trial concludes.