Endless incarceration without trial falls foul of Article 21: Delhi High Court

Endless incarceration without a trial in the near future falls foul of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Delhi High Court said recently, and granted bail to a man held in a cheating case in 2022.

Justice Amit Mahajan said if an accused was suffering a prolonged incarceration without a timely trial in the case, courts would ordinarily be obligated to release them on bail.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution deals with the right of life and personal liberty.

In the case in hand, the judge said charges were yet to be framed, the prosecution had sought repeated adjournments to file a supplementary chargesheet and it had been a year since the accused's last bail plea was dismissed.

"The applicant has spent more than two years in custody. There is no likelihood of the trial being completed in near future. In such circumstances, incarceration of the applicant for an endless period on account of non-examination of witnesses falls foul of Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the court said on 24 December 2024.

The order therefore released the man on a personal bond of Rs 50 lakh with two sureties.

The court said the law preferred bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system, and though the offence was serious, long incarceration was a relevant factor.

The object of jailing was to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and the apprehension of the accused being a flight risk could be allayed by imposing appropriate conditions, it said.

The court said the prosecution could issue a lookout circular against him.

The Delhi Police arrested the man for allegedly cheating a company of Rs 7 crore by issuing fake payment receipts after placing bulk orders for rice containers.

The Police's economic offences wing lodged a complaint, alleging Sandeep Tilwani made 74 bookings for 640 rice containers with the company for transportation amounting to Rs 11.2 crore, police said.

Tilwani, represented by advocate Utkarsh Singh, argued he was framed in the case and the complainant lodged the FIR owing to financial losses.

The accused said he was only a middleman between importers and companies providing freight services, and his only role was to introduce parties to each other.