Tapas Kumar Palit vs State Of Chhattisgarh

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.738 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 15971 OF 2024)

TAPAS KUMAR PALIT Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)

O R D E R

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 Appeal No.1951 of 2023 by

Signature Not Verified which the High Court dismissed the Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Date: 2025.02.14 1 19:10:34 IST Reason:

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

2 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

3

(v) walki talki and other articles.

5. The appellant was arrested on the very

same date i.e. 24th 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

4 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 24th March, 2020. He has no

other 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

5 undermined 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

6 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

7 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 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

8 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

9 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.

10

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

11 district Kanker.

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.

...................J. [J.B.PARDIWALA]

...................J. [R. MAHADEVAN]

New Delhi 14th February, 2025.

12