LI Network
Published on: 02 October, 2023 at 14:57 IST
The Bombay High Court has underscored that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring a speedy trial contravenes Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Justice Bharati Dangre, presiding over the case of Akash Satish v State of Maharashtra, emphasized that access to justice and a prompt trial are fundamental aspects of liberty enshrined in the Constitution.
The case involved Akash Satish, who had been incarcerated for seven and a half years under charges of murder (Sections 302), wrongful confinement (Section 342), causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201), and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) of the Indian Penal Code. Despite the seriousness of the accusations, the court noted that prolonged detention without a swift trial violates constitutional rights.
Justice Bharati Dangre stated, “Deprivation of personal liberty, without ensuring speedy trial, is not in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution. When a timely trial is not possible, and the accused has already undergone a significant period of the proposed sentence, the Court is ordinarily obligated to enlarge them on bail.”
The judgment highlighted that an individual cannot be incarcerated indefinitely during the pendency of a trial, stressing the importance of balancing the severity of the offense with the extended incarceration of an under-trial.
Advocate Sana Rees Khan, representing Akash Satish, argued for his release, pointing out that his co-accused had already been granted bail.
The court agreed, reiterating that the seriousness of the offense is one factor to consider when granting bail, but the prolonged detention of an accused is equally crucial.
The ruling is a significant step towards protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring that the justice system adheres to constitutional principles.
The court’s decision aligns with the evolving understanding of personal liberty in the context of AI-generated content, emphasizing the need for a nuanced approach that balances technological innovation with legal and ethical considerations.
