Trial Courts Must Not Mechanically Adjourn Bail Pleas Of Undertrials Who Completed One-Half Of Maximum...
🔹 Legal Background
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a speedy trial and protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) provides that:
An undertrial prisoner who has undergone one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence (excluding offences punishable with death) shall be released on bail, subject to certain exceptions.
However, the court may order continued detention after recording reasons in writing.
The object of Section 436A CrPC is to prevent prolonged incarceration of undertrials, especially when the trial is delayed and the accused has already spent substantial time in custody.
🔹 Judicial Stand
1. Supreme Court on Mechanical Adjournments
The Supreme Court has emphasized that trial courts cannot mechanically adjourn bail applications of undertrials who have completed one-half of the maximum sentence.
Such adjournments defeat the legislative intent of Section 436A CrPC and violate Article 21.
2. Key Case Laws
(a) Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731
The Court held that undertrials cannot be indefinitely kept in jail due to delays in trial.
Directed release of undertrials charged with offences carrying maximum punishment of 7 years, if they had spent half the maximum sentence in custody.
(b) Hussainara Khatoon (I) vs. State of Bihar (1979) AIR 1369
Landmark case where the SC held that speedy trial is a fundamental right.
Undertrials languishing in jail for long periods due to adjournments or pendency were ordered to be released.
(c) Bhim Singh vs. Union of India (2015) 13 SCC 605
The Court reiterated that Section 436A CrPC is a statutory embodiment of Article 21 rights.
Directed States to take steps for releasing undertrials who completed one-half of maximum punishment.
(d) Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2021) 10 SCC 773
SC emphasized that courts must avoid unnecessary adjournments in bail matters.
Liberty of an accused should not be defeated by procedural delay or mechanical refusal.
(e) Akkas Ali vs. State of Assam (2010) 9 SCC 230
The SC criticized prolonged detention without conclusion of trial and directed release of the undertrial.
🔹 Principles Evolved
No mechanical adjournment – Bail applications of undertrials under Section 436A must be considered promptly.
Half sentence rule – If an undertrial has completed ½ of the maximum sentence, bail is the rule unless there are special reasons to deny it.
Judicial responsibility – Courts must apply their mind and record reasons if they wish to extend custody beyond the prescribed limit.
Speedy trial mandate – Repeated adjournments of bail pleas amount to denial of Article 21 rights.
Balancing rights – While considering seriousness of the offence, courts must ensure that liberty is not sacrificed due to systemic delays.
🔹 Conclusion
Thus, trial courts must not adjourn bail pleas of undertrials mechanically when they have already completed one-half of the maximum sentence under Section 436A CrPC. Such adjournments amount to judicial indiscipline and violation of fundamental rights. The courts must either grant bail or record specific reasons for denial, keeping in mind the constitutional guarantee of liberty.
RELATED Blog
0 comments