Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the
High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur dated 16.02.2024 in Criminal
632 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appeal No.1951 of 2023 by which the High Court dismissed the
Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant herein (original accused)
and thereby declined to release him on bail in connection with
Sessions Case No.32/2020 arising from the First Information Report
bearing no.9/2020 dated 24th March, 2020 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C
respectively of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (for short
“the UAPA”), Sections 8(2), (3) and (5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh
Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and Sections 120B, 201 and 149
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein on 24th March,
2020 was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration no. CG-07/AH-
6555. The police had information that the above numbered vehicle is
to pass by and the same is carrying articles ordinarily used relating
in the Naxalite Activities. Accordingly, the vehicle was intercepted.
4. The search was undertaken and the following articles were recovered
from the car alleged to be in conscious possession of the appellant
herein:-
(i) 95 pair of shoes
(ii) green black printed cloth
(iii) two bundles of electric wire each of 100 metere
(iv) LED lens and
(v) walki talki and other articles.
5. The appellant was arrested on the very same date i.e. 24 th March,
2020. At the end of the investigation charge-sheet came to be filed.
6. The trial is in progress. Till this date the prosecution has been able
to examine 42 witnesses. The prosecution intends to examine as
many as 100 witnesses. We are conscious of the Order passed by
us taking the view that once the trial commences and the witnesses
are being examined then in serious crimes like murder, dacoity, rape,
etc, the Court ordinarily should not exercise its discretion for the
purpose of grant of bail, more particularly, looking into the evidence
which has come on record.
7. However, this is a case in which the appellant is in custody as
an under trial prisoner since 24 th March, 2020. He has no other
Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh
antecedents. The panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama have
also turned hostile.
8. It’s been now 5 years that he is in judicial custody. The learned
counsel appearing for the State has no idea as regards the time
likely to be consumed to complete the recording of the oral evidence.
9. In such circumstances, we are left with no other option but to order
release of the appellant on bail. We do not undermine the seriousness
of the crime that has been alleged.
10. However, many times we have made ourselves very clear that
howsoever serious a crime may be the accused has a fundamental
right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
11. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe as to why the
Public Prosecutor wants to examine 100 witnesses. Who are these
100 witnesses? We are aware that it is the public prosecutor who
could be said to be in-charge of the trial and he has to decide who
is to be examined and who is to be dropped. But at the same time,
no useful purpose would be served if 10 witnesses are examined
to establish one particular fact.
12. The aforesaid results in indefinite delay in conclusion of trial. It is
expected of the Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion
in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned.
13. Where the number of witnesses is large, it is not, in our opinion,
necessary that everyone should be produced. In this connection, we
may refer to Malak Khan vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 Privy Council 16]
where their Lordships observed as follows at page 19:-
“It is no doubt very important that, as a general rule, all
Crown witnesses should be called to testify at the hearing
of a prosecution, but important as it is, there is no obligation
compelling counsel for the prosecution to call all witnesses
who speak to facts which the Crown desire to prove.
Ultimately it is a matter for the discretion of counsel for the
prosecution and though a Court ought, and no doubt will,
take into consideration the absence of witnesses whose
testimony would be expected, it must judge the evidence
as a whole and arrive at its conclusion accordingly taking
into consideration the persuasiveness of the testimony
634 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
given in the light of such criticism as may be levelled at
the absence of possible witnesses.”
14. In this regard, the role of the Special Judge (NIA) would also
assume importance. The Special Judge should inquire with the
Special Public Prosecutor why he intends to examine a particular
witness if such witness is going to depose the very same thing that
any other witness might have deposed earlier. We may sound as if
laying some guidelines, but time has come to consider this issue of
delay and bail in its true and proper perspective. If an accused is
to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail
as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his
right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has
been infringed. The stress of long trials on accused persons – who
remain innocent until proven guilty – can also be significant. Accused
persons are not financially compensated for what might be a lengthy
period of pre-trial incarceration. They may also have lost a job or
accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships
while incarcerated, and spent a considerable amount of money
on legal fees. If an accused person is found not guilty, they have
likely endured many months of being stigmatized and perhaps even
ostracized in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with
their own resources.
15. We would say that delays are bad for the accused and extremely
bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our
justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their
Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools
for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently.
16. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The
impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant
is ordered to be released on bail forthwith subject to terms and
conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.
17. However, we direct that the appellant shall not enter into the revenue
limits of district Kanker, State of Chhattisgarh. He shall appear
on-line on each date of the hearing before the trial. It is only in the
last when his further statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is
to be recorded, he shall personally remain present before the Trial
Court. For this limited purpose, he shall enter into district Kanker.
Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh
18. We make it clear that if the appellant commits breach of the condition
in any form as imposed by us, the bail shall stand automatically
cancelled.
19. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†