Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 and warrants bail despite murder charges.

The applicant was arrested on 13 February 2024 in connection with Crime No. 53/2024 registered at Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, for offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Sanjay Nagwanshi, and the wife of co-accused Sulechand Nagwanshi were found dead near Sulechand’s house.

According to Sulechand’s memorandum statement, he discovered his wife and Sanjay in a compromising position and committed their murders, with the applicant allegedly assisting him.

The charge-sheet was filed in 2024 and charges were framed on 3 September 2024. However, despite the applicant remaining in custody since 13 February 2024, no prosecution witness had been examined by the date of the bail order.

The applicant therefore sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, principally relying on his prolonged incarceration and denial of a speedy trial.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and the material available in the case diary?

Whether the applicant’s prolonged pre-trial incarceration, despite framing of charges and examination of no prosecution witness, violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, in the context of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21, holding that prolonged incarceration without meaningful progress in the trial may justify release on bail, even where the accused is charged with murder.

The Court followed Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810, which held that prolonged incarceration without examination of witnesses infringes the right to speedy trial, and Pardeep Kumar Banu v. State of Punjab, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 3024, which recognized that incarceration without trial amounts to punishment in appropriate circumstances.

The Court considered the allegations, the case diary, and the applicant’s period of custody.

Although the prosecution alleged that the applicant had assisted the co-accused in committing the murders, the Court emphasized that the applicant had remained in custody since 13 February 2024, charges had been framed on 3 September 2024, and not a single prosecution witness had been examined by the date of consideration of the application.

Applying the Article 21 principle recognized in Sahil Manoj Machare and Pardeep Kumar Banu, the Court held that the absence of progress in the trial was a significant factor favouring bail.

The Court also took into account that the applicant had no previous criminal antecedents.

Bail was made subject to conditions that the applicant would appear for police interrogation when required, would not influence or threaten witnesses, and would not act in a manner prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the determination of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the criminal trial.