The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, strongly emphasized the responsibility of courts to actively uphold the right of an accused to a speedy trial, instead of lamenting the delay after significant custody. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while granting bail to Amit Agrawal, an undertrial in a cheating case, observed that courts must act promptly to ensure justice.
“How long is long enough, before a court realises that an undertrial has been in custody for too long, and the constitutional promise of speedy trial has been repudiated?” — Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: False Rape Complaints Overburden Courts, Harm Real Victims
The case involved a criminal conspiracy where officials allegedly forged documents to siphon unclaimed funds from the Customs Department. Agrawal was accused of acting as a financial conduit in the conspiracy led by Jayanta Ghosh. He had been in judicial custody for over 13 months.
According to the FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi in October 2023, under IPC Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34, several accused, including a former Customs official, a bank manager, and others, were involved in fraudulently diverting about ₹10 crores.
Agrawal’s counsel argued that he was not a key conspirator and had no role in the forgery. He was allegedly persuaded to allow the use of his accounts without knowing the illicit nature of the funds, which he believed were for “tax saving purposes.” The chargesheet, already filed, runs into 10,000 pages with 49 witnesses listed, but charges are yet to be framed and the trial has not commenced.
“Regardless of the maximum punishment… the petitioner is only an accused pending trial and has not been held guilty for any offences as of date. He cannot be detained in custody endlessly.” — Delhi High Court
The Court pointed out that prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It emphasized that pre-trial custody is not meant to punish but to ensure an accused’s presence at trial.
“It is crucial for a court to recognise and be conscious of the right of an accused to speedy trial; and to prevent that right from being defeated.” — Delhi High Court
Citing several Supreme Court judgments, the Court reiterated that imprisonment before conviction causes irreversible harm, especially for those from weaker sections, affecting their livelihood, dignity, and family life.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: Directors Not Personally Liable for Company’s Export Default Without Specific Allegations
Despite the State’s argument that Agrawal had a major role in the economic offence, the Court found no direct involvement in forgery or knowledge of the fraud’s extent. Other co-accused had already been granted bail, and Agrawal had never violated interim bail conditions in the past.
Given the absence of necessity for continued detention and the ongoing delays in trial proceedings, the Court granted regular bail to Agrawal under strict conditions including a ₹5 lakh bond, surrender of passport, and no tampering with evidence.
“The right to speedy trial is the flip-side of the presumption of innocence… it would be sacrilege for a court to disregard this while failing to ensure trial efficiency.” — Delhi High Court
The judgment is a significant reminder for the judiciary to actively protect the fundamental rights of undertrials and prevent the justice system from becoming a punishment in itself.
Title: Amit Agrawal v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
