Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation; 2025 INSC 1440 - S.436A CrPC - S.479 BNSS

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023- Section 479 [Section 436A CrPC] - The provision cannot be interpreted to suggest that it’s a mandate under law to not release under-trail prisoners unless they complete one-half or one-third of sentence as the case may be - An accused charged with offences having maximum punishment of life imprisonment, cannot claim benefit under Section 479 of BNSS, however on the other hand it cannot be construed as a positive mandate to keep them incarcerated till the completion of trial. Hence, granting them, bail has to be tested on the well devised standards of granting bail as provided under the Code, coupled with personal liberty of the citizens. (Para 22-23)

Constitution of India - Article 21 -Right to speedy trial is an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Where delay in investigation or trial is such that incarceration becomes unduly prolonged, the constitutional guarantee of fairness is irreparably compromised. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, particularly where custody is no longer necessary for investigation, has an inherently punitive in character and amounts to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution- Bail - Under Indian law “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is etched in the ethos of criminal jurisprudence- Criminal law presumes a person to be innocent unless proven otherwise- Generally an under-trial prisoner ought not be placed behind bars indefinitely unless there is clear threat to society, influencing witnesses/inquiry or he is a flight risk etc. This rule also ensures that process is also not made punishment, wherein a person is jailed for very many years pending trial. Bail under the Code is a qualified right of an accused before conviction, wherein the accused is not guaranteed bail, rather it puts onus on the prosecution to establish as to why the under-trial prisoner should not be enlarged on bail. Any deviation in the above proposition is constitutionally circumspect -Pre-trial incarceration cannot be allowed to degenerate into punishment without adjudication, and courts are constitutionally obliged to intervene where long custody becomes disproportionate, arbitrary, or excessive - If the State lacks the wherewithal to ensure a speedy trial, it cannot oppose bail on the ground of seriousness of the offence, thereby clarifying that Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of crime - seriousness of the charge is a relevant consideration, it is not the sole determinant to deny bail. NDPS Act - Section 37 ; PMLA - Section 45 ; UAPA - Section 37 -These provisions cannot be used as tools to incarcerate an undertrial for an unreasonably long period without conclusion of trial. (Para 11-19)