New Delhi, India
The Supreme Court on Tuesday made an important observation that the detention of an accused cannot be continued as a form of punishment before the charges are proved and the trial reaches a conclusion. The court said that if there is no reasonable possibility of the trial commencing or concluding in the near future, prolonged detention raises concerns regarding the fundamental right to personal liberty.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu made the observation while granting bail to two accused persons in a 2024 case related to alleged financial irregularities in Rajasthan’s Public Health Engineering Department (PHED). The court reiterated the established principle of criminal law that detention before trial cannot be treated as punishment.
Protection of Personal Liberty Under Article 21
The Supreme Court observed that when the conclusion of a trial is not reasonably foreseeable in the near future, courts must consider intervening to protect an individual’s personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench also considered the current status of the trial and the evidence available in the case. According to the court, the proceedings are still at an early stage and a substantial amount of evidence would have to be presented to establish the allegations.
Given the likelihood that the trial could take considerable time, the court said it was necessary to examine whether continued detention of the accused was justified.
Investigation Completed, Chargesheet Filed
The Supreme Court passed its order on separate petitions filed by Sanjay Badaya and Shubhanshu Dixit. Both had challenged the Rajasthan High Court’s decision rejecting their regular bail applications.
The bench noted that the investigation against both accused had been completed and the chargesheet had already been filed. The prosecution’s case is primarily based on documentary records and electronic evidence.
The court observed that there was limited scope for the accused to tamper with such evidence. Therefore, it found no sufficient impediment to granting them bail.
Some Co-Accused Have Already Been Granted Bail
The Supreme Court also took into consideration the fact that some other co-accused in the case had already been granted bail. This included PHED Minister Mahesh Chandra Joshi, who had been granted bail in the PMLA case.
The Supreme Court’s observation is being viewed as significant in the context of personal liberty and pre-trial detention. The court made it clear that keeping a person in custody for a prolonged period before conviction cannot, by itself, become a substitute for punishment.
