Prolonged pre-trial incarceration violating the constitutional right to a speedy trial warrants grant of bail.

The applicant, Ganesh Kumar Ojha, was arrested on March 26, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 17/2023 registered at Police Station Padav, Gwalior, for offenses under Sections 420, 406, 409, and 34 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleges that the applicant and his associates operated a firm, "Char Chatur Associates," and induced the complainant to book a plot under a "100% cashless scheme".

The complainant and her husband allegedly paid a total of approximately ₹10,70,000 through various transfers and checks, but the accused failed to execute the sale deed and subsequently absconded.

This is the applicant's second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, filed after his first application was withdrawn on January 12, 2024.

At the time of this application, the applicant had been in judicial custody for over two and a half years, and 8 out of 11 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, due to the inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial.

2. Whether the applicant's continued pre-trial incarceration violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It further relied on the constitutional principles enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to personal liberty and establishes that the right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of that right.

The court maintained the principle that pre-trial detention should not serve as "punishment prior to conviction".

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the applicant's fundamental rights.

It observed that the applicant had undergone pre-trial incarceration for more than two and a half years.

While the State argued that the trial was progressing (with 8 of 11 witnesses examined), the court found that the "inordinately long period" of the trial's pendency constituted a violation of the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.

The court reasoned that since the applicant is a permanent resident of Gwalior and there was no evidence suggesting he would flee or tamper with evidence, continued detention was "wholly unjustified".

The court emphasized that bail is a manifestation of personal liberty and should only be denied in accordance with procedures that respect constitutional mandates.

It held that the violation of the right to a speedy trial and the duration of custody necessitated the extension of bail.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to several conditions: compliance with bond terms, cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses, and a prohibition against leaving the country without prior permission.