Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"321. The Union of India also recognised the right to speedy trial and (2023) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2025 at 23:17:56 access to justice as fundamental right in their written submissions and, thus, submitted that in a limited situation right of bail can be granted in case of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, it is to be noted that Section 436-A of the 1973 Code was inserted after the enactment of the 2002 Act. Thus, it would not be appropriate to deny the relief of Section 436-A of the 1973 Code which is a wholesome provision beneficial to a person accused under the 2002 Act. However, Section 436-A of the 1973 Code, does not provide for an absolute right of bail as in the case of default bail under Section 167 of the 1973 Code. For, in the fact situation of a case, the court may still deny the relief owing to ground, such as where the trial was delayed at the instance of the accused himself.

324. Section 436-A of the 1973 Code, is a wholesome beneficial This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2025 at 23:17:56 provision, which is for effectuating the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and which merely specifies the outer limits within which the trial is expected to be concluded, failing which, the accused ought not to be detained further. Indeed, Section 436-A of the 1973 Code also contemplates that the relief under this provision cannot be granted mechanically. It is still within the discretion of the court, unlike the default bail under Section 167 of the 1973 Code. Under Section 436-A of the 1973 Code, however, the court is required to consider the relief on case-to-case basis. As the proviso therein itself recognises that, in a given case, the detention can be continued by the court even longer than one-half of the period, for which, reasons are to be recorded by it in writing and also by imposing such terms and conditions so as to ensure that after release, the accused makes himself/herself available for expeditious completion of the trial.

326. In our opinion, therefore, Section 436-A needs to be construed as a statutory bail provision and akin to Section 167 of the 1973 Code. Notably, the learned Solicitor General has fairly accepted during the arguments and also restated in the written notes that the mandate of Section 167 of the 1973 Code would apply with full force even to cases falling under Section 3 of the 2002 Act, regarding money laundering offences. On the same logic, we must hold that Section 436-A of the 1973 Code could be invoked by the accused arrested for the offence punishable under the 2002 Act, being a statutory bail."

9. A plain reading of the provision makes it evident that the benefit under Section 436-A is not available to undertrial prisoners who are facing trial for offences punishable with death. This limitation is categorical and operates as an exception to the general rule of release on bail after undergoing one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment. Section 436- A is, therefore, not an absolute or indefeasible right, but a statutory mechanism aimed at effectuating the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21. In fact, the judgement in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, relied upon by the Applicant, itself clarifies that Section 436-A Cr.P.C. is inapplicable to cases where the accused is facing trial for offences punishable with death.