His counsel M S Khan contended since nine years of his jail, only two witnesses have been examined and there was no possibility of trial coming to end in near future.
In its judgment, the court said, "When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude."
The bench pointed out this court in a catena of judgments has held that an accused or an undertrial has a fundamental right to speedy trial which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution.
"If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously," it said
The bench said even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part.
"In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence," the bench said.
The court further stressed Article 21 of the Constitution is overarching and sacrosanct.
"A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way," the bench said.
Published 18 July 2024, 17:02 IST
