TAPAS KUMAR PALIT versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 13-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 630 : 2025 INSC 222
Tapas Kumar Palit  
v. 
State of Chhattisgarh
(Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2025)
14 February 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant in judicial custody for 5 years, no certainty as regards the 
time likely to take in conclusion of the trial. Whether the appellant 
is entitled to bail.
Headnotes†
Bail – Entitlement to – Delay in trial – Constitution of India – 
Article 21 – Right to speedy trial – Unlawful Activities Prevention 
Act, 1967 – Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 
2005 – Penal Code, 1860 – FIR against appellant under the 
aforesaid Acts – Trial in progress – Out of 100 witnesses, 42 
witnesses examined – Bail denied by High Court – Challenge to:
Held: Howsoever serious a crime may be, the accused has a 
fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the 
Constitution – Appellant has been in custody as an under trial 
prisoner since March 2020 – He has no other antecedents – The 
panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama have also turned 
hostile – Out of 100 witnesses, only 42 witnesses have been 
examined – There is no certainty as regards the time likely to be 
consumed to complete the recording of the oral evidence – If an 
accused gets a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years 
in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then his right to have a speedy trial 
u/Article 21 is infringed – Impugned order set aside – Appellant 
granted bail. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 10 , 14, 16] 
Examination of the witnesses – Large number of witnesses, 
everyone need not be examined to establish one particular 
fact – Public Prosecutor to exercise discretion wisely:
Held: Where the number of witnesses is large, it is not necessary 
that everyone should be produced – It results in indefinite delay 
in conclusion of trial – Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his 
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 
631
Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh
discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned – 
Role of the Special Judge (NIA), discussed. [Paras 13, 14]
Long trials – Effect on accused – Discussed. [Para 14]
Case Law Cited
Malak Khan v. Emperor, AIR 1946 Privy Council 16 – referred to. 
List of Acts
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967; Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan 
Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Right to speedy trial; Bail; Delay 
in trial; Trial in progress; Long trials; Seriousness of the crime; No 
antecedents; Panch witnesses hostile; Indefinite delay in conclusion 
of trial; Under trial prisoner; Examination of the witnesses; Large 
number of witnesses; Public Prosecutor; Special Judge (NIA).
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
738 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2024 of the High Court 
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRA No. 1951 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sameer Shrivastava, Ms. Yashika Varshney, Ms. Palak Mathur, 
Dr. Sangeeta Verma
Advs. for the Respondents:
Abhishek Pandey, Prashant Kumar Umrao
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the 
High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur dated 16.02.2024 in Criminal 
632
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appeal No.1951 of 2023 by which the High Court dismissed the 
Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant herein (original accused) 
and thereby declined to release him on bail in connection with 
Sessions Case No.32/2020 arising from the First Information Report 
bearing no.9/2020 dated 24th March, 2020 registered for the offence 
punishable under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C 
respectively of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (for short 
“the UAPA”), Sections 8(2), (3) and (5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh 
Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and Sections 120B, 201 and 149 
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3.	
It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein on 24th March, 
2020 was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration no. CG-07/AH-
6555. The police had information that the above numbered vehicle is 
to pass by and the same is carrying articles ordinarily used relating 
in the Naxalite Activities. Accordingly, the vehicle was intercepted.
4.	
The search was undertaken and the following articles were recovered 
from the car alleged to be in conscious possessio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.