Eighteen years after the applicant was first taken into custody in the case, the Gujarat High Court granted him regular bail because the charge had still not been framed. The court did not enter into the merits of the prosecution.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar decided the application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court and Sessions Court to grant bail.
“Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction”
— Para 7
Why it matters. The order treats extreme trial delay as an independent threat to personal liberty under Article 21. Even allegations carrying severe punishment cannot turn an undertrial’s detention into an advance sentence when the criminal court has not reached the stage of framing a charge.
Eighteen years before charge
The prosecution arose from FIR I-C.R. No. 293 of 2007 at Halol Police Station, Panchmahal, alleging dacoity, conspiracy, receiving stolen property, and offences under the Arms Act and Gujarat Police Act. The court recorded that the applicant was produced on a transfer warrant on 8 February 2008 and that his custody in the case had continued since February 2008.
Seven other offences had been registered against him. He had been acquitted in three, was on bail in three, and remained in judicial custody in one. For the present decision, however, the decisive number was the 18-year lapse after committal without a framed charge.
The investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and nothing remained to be recovered or discovered from the applicant. The court applied Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor while stressing that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
The judgment
The court directed release on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one local surety for the same amount. The applicant must surrender any passport within one week, stay in India without trial-court permission, report to the police once each month for six months, disclose his identity and contact details, and avoid contact with evidence or illegal activity. Release remains subject to his not being required in another case.
The trial court may modify the conditions. It must decide the evidence without being influenced by the High Court’s preliminary observations. The application was allowed and Rule was made absolute to that extent.
“But the facts remains that in the impugned offence the custody of the applicant remains continuous since February 2008 and till date after the committal of the case the charge is yet to be framed after efflux of 18 years.”
— Para 6
“At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.”
— Para 11