in case of delayed trial - aravind kejriwal vs cbi

2024 INSC 687
1  P a g e
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 3816 / 2024
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11023 / 2024)
Arvind Kejriwal .Appellant(s)
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation .Respondent(s)
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 3817 / 2024
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10991 / 2024)
JUDGEMENT
SURYA KANT, J.B. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the relief of regular bail?
37. Adverting to the question of granting bail to the Appellant, it may be
noticed that the High Court has viewed that due to the complexity and
web of facts and the material on record, it was crucial to comprehensively
determine the role of the Appellant in the alleged conspiracy and then
only decide his entitlement to bail. The High Court further observed that
considering the charge sheet had been filed before the Trial Court, the
Appellant should first seek relief from that court.
38. The evolution of bail jurisprudence in India underscores that the issue
of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public
treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is
22  P a g e
integral to a socially sensitised judicial process.
4 The principle has
further been expanded to establish that the prolonged incarceration of
an accused person, pending trial, amounts to an unjust deprivation of
personal liberty. This Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb has
expanded this principle even in a case under the provisions of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter UAPA)
notwithstanding the statutory embargo contained in Section 43-D(5) of
that Act, laying down that the legislative policy against the grant of bail
will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within
a reasonable time.
5 The courts would invariably bend towards liberty
with a flexible approach towards an undertrial, save and except when the
release of such person is likely to shatter societal aspirations, derail the
trial or deface the very criminal justice system which is integral to rule
of law.
39. It was submitted during these proceedings that the FIR was registered
on 17.08.2022, and since then, the chargesheet along with four
supplementary chargesheets have been filed. The fourth supplementary
chargesheet was filed as recently as 29.07.2024 and we are informed that
the Trial Court has taken cognizance of the same. Additionally, seventeen
accused persons have been named, 224 individuals have been identified
as witnesses, and extensive documentation, both physical and digital,
 
4 Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240.
5 Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712.
23  P a g e
has been submitted. These factors suggest that the completion of the
trial is unlikely to occur in the immediate future.
40. In our considered view, although the procedure for the Appellants arrest
meets the requisite criteria for legality and compliance, continued
incarceration for an extended period pending trial would infringe upon
established legal principles and the Appellants right to liberty, traceable
to Article 21 of our Constitution. The Appellant has been granted interim
bail by this Court in the ED matter on 10.05.2024 and 12.07.2024,
arising from the same set of facts. Additionally, several co-accused in
both the CBI and ED matters have also been granted bail by the Trial
Court, the High Court, and this Court in separate proceedings.
41. So far as the apprehension of the Appellant influencing the outcome of
the trial is concerned, it seems that all evidence and material relevant to
the CBIs disposition is already in their possession, negating the
likelihood of tampering by the Appellant. Similarly, given the Appellants
position and his roots in the society, there seems to be no valid reason
to entertain the apprehension of his fleeing the country. In any case, in
order to assuage the apprehensions of the CBI, we may impose stricter
bail conditions. As regard to Appellant indulging in influencing
witnesses, it needs no emphasis that in the event of any such instance,
it will amount to misuse of the concession of bail and necessary
consequences will follow.
24  P a g e
42. Therefore, in the light of these extenuating circumstances and
considering the foregoing analysis, it could be resolved that the Appellant
satisfies the requisite triple conditions for the grant of bail. We order
accordingly.