Seriousness of Offence – The Court held that gang rape under Section 376(D) IPC was punishable with rigorous imprisonment not less than 20 years, extending up to life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life. Given the severity of punishment, bail could not be granted lightly.

Right to Speedy Trial Not Absolute – The Court observed that Section 436(A) CrPC and Section 479 BNSS do not mandate release of undertrials after completion of half or one-third of the sentence in all cases. The trial court had already framed charges and issued witness summons, indicating progress.

Prima Facie Evidence Against the Accused – The Court noted that FIR, victim’s statement, medical evidence, and identification parade supported the prosecution’s case. At the bail stage, a detailed analysis of evidence was not required, but prima facie involvement was evident.

Likelihood of Tampering with Witnesses – As the accused belonged to the same village as the victim and witnesses, the Court considered the risk of witness intimidation and rejected the bail plea.

Bail Application dismissed – The Court held that no case for bail was made out on merits, and delay in trial alone was not a sufficient ground to release the accused when the prosecution had taken effective steps.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 436(A) – Maximum Detention Period for Undertrials
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 376(D) – Gang Rape, Section 366 – Kidnapping, Section 506 – Criminal Intimidation, Section 34 – Common Intention
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 479 – Maximum Period of Undertrial Detention

Nature of Litigation:

• Second Bail Application filed by the accused under Section 439 of the CrPC for an offence under Section 376(D), 366, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860.

Relief Sought:

• The accused sought bail on the grounds of violation of the right to a speedy trial, stating that he had been incarcerated for over three years without trial completion.

Reasons for Filing:

• The first bail application was withdrawn with liberty to reapply if there was no substantial progress in trial. Since the trial was moving slowly, the accused reapplied for bail.

What Has Already Been Decided?

• The trial court framed charges on 5th February 2025. The prosecution submitted that witness summons had been issued and the case was proceeding expeditiously.

Issues for Consideration:

1. Whether prolonged incarceration violated the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
2. Whether the accused could be granted bail under Section 436(A) of CrPC or Section 479 of BNSS?
3. Whether the prima facie evidence justified continued detention of the accused?

Submissions/Arguments:

Applicant's Contentions:

• Three years of incarceration without trial completion violated Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The accused was not involved in the crime, and the prosecution case was based on weak evidence.
• Cited Supreme Court rulings on the right to a speedy trial, including Shaikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 SCC Online SC 1755).

Prosecution's Contentions:

• The offence was serious in nature, involving gang rape by the accused and three other co-accused.
• The victim’s statement, medical evidence, and Test Identification Parade (TIP) supported the prosecution case.
• Charge had already been framed, and the prosecution was taking effective steps to expedite the trial.
• If released on bail, the accused could threaten witnesses, as he and the victim belonged to the same village.

Subjects:

Bail Rejection – Gang Rape – Speedy Trial – Prima Facie Evidence – Witness Tampering – Serious Offence – Test Identification Parade – Medical Evidence – Article 21 – Section 376(D) IPC – Section 436(A) CrPC – Section 479 BNSS