Introduction:

The Orissa High Court, in a landmark decision in Dilip Ranjan Nath v. Republic of India (CBI) [BLAPL No. 12707 of 2023], reaffirmed that the prolonged detention of an accused without trial constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The case involved a petitioner accused of operating an illegal money circulation scheme, defrauding depositors of crores of rupees, and remaining in judicial custody for over six and a half years without significant progress in trial proceedings. While granting bail, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy emphasized that indefinite incarceration without ensuring timely adjudication is antithetical to the right to life and liberty.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate S.C. Mahapatra along with Advocate S.S. Mohapatra, contended that his prolonged detention without trial amounted to a denial of his constitutional rights. It was argued that only 11 out of 177 prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating that the trial would take an unreasonably long time to conclude. The petitioner maintained that while the charges were serious, the delay in trial was solely attributable to the investigating agency, making his continued incarceration unjustified. The Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, Mr Sarthak Nayak, opposed the bail plea, highlighting the gravity of the economic offence and the large sums involved. He asserted that the petitioner’s release could undermine the case and potentially hinder the course of justice. However, he was unable to provide information regarding any prior criminal antecedents of the petitioner.

Court’s Judgment:

The Orissa High Court ruled in favour of the petitioner, holding that incarceration for more than six and a half years without conclusion of trial constituted an infringement of his fundamental right to a speedy trial. The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 211, where it was held that undertrial detention exceeding six years amounts to a violation of Article 21. Justice Satapathy remarked that, regardless of the severity of the allegations, no individual could be deprived of their right to a fair and expeditious trial. He further criticized the CBI for the inordinate delay in examining witnesses, holding the investigating agency accountable for the sluggish progress of the trial. The court observed that fundamental rights cannot be suspended indefinitely on the mere expectation that the trial would eventually be concluded. Consequently, the petitioner was granted bail on furnishing bonds of Rs. 5,00,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to stringent conditions, including a clause allowing for revocation of bail upon any violation. The court’s judgment reaffirms the primacy of constitutional rights over prolonged pretrial detention, setting a significant precedent infavourr of expeditious criminal justice.