In a landmark decision, the Bombay High Court has underscored the significance of taking into account the time an undertrial has spent in custody when deliberating on bail applications. This emphasis holds true even in cases involving grave offenses. The ruling was delivered by Justice Bharati Dangre, who granted bail to Akash Chandalia, an individual accused of a double murder, who had languished in prison without trial for a staggering 7.5 years.
Justice Dangre’s judgment shed light on the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, particularly Article 21, which guarantees every citizen the right to life and personal liberty. She articulated,
“Deprivation of personal liberty, without ensuring a speedy trial, is not in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution. In situations where a prompt trial isn’t feasible, it’s unjust to prolong the incarceration of the accused, especially if they’ve already served a significant portion of the potential sentence. In such scenarios, the court would typically be duty-bound to grant bail, irrespective of the gravity of the charges against the individual.”
Drawing attention to the specifics of Chandalia’s case, his bail application highlighted a notable discrepancy. Two other individuals implicated in the same case, namely Vikas Gaikwad and Yasmin Sayyed, had been released on bail in 2022, primarily due to the protracted delay in their trials. Recognizing this inconsistency, Justice Dangre remarked that if the co-accused had been granted bail due to trial delays, it was only fair that Chandalia be accorded the same consideration.
In her comprehensive 7-page order, Justice Dangre delved deeper into the multifaceted nature of bail decisions. She elucidated,
“While the severity and heinousness of a crime undoubtedly warrant consideration during bail deliberations, it’s equally imperative to factor in the prolonged detention of an accused as an under-trial. Both elements must be weighed judiciously to ensure justice.”
This ruling by the Bombay High Court serves as a poignant reminder of the delicate balance the judiciary must maintain between upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring societal safety.
