In Brief
A man accused of Naxalite-related offences under the UAPA was arrested in March 2020 after police seized articles from his vehicle. After five years in judicial custody, with only 42 of 100 proposed prosecution witnesses examined, he sought bail. The High Court had refused. The Supreme Court held that though courts ordinarily restrain bail during trial in serious cases, this accused had a fundamental constitutional right to speedy trial which was violated. With key witnesses now hostile, no antecedents, and no end to trial in sight, bail was granted with strict conditions, including residence restrictions and online hearing attendance. The Court criticized excessive witness lists and directed judges to ensure efficient trial management.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.