Personal liberty of undertrial can’t be curtailed for indefinite period: Delhi HC

Any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content, observes Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed that pre-trial detention cannot be extended just to “educate the accused” as it granted bail to an accused in a robbery case.


“An unconvicted person should be arrested only if there is a possibility that he will flee, tamper with evidence or threaten a witness. Just because of the serious nature of the crime, it cannot be a basis to restrict the personal liberty of the accused for an indefinite period, said Justice Vikas Mahajan.

The case was based on a complaint filed by a woman at the New Ashok Nagar police station on September 3, 2020, that her daughter had gone missing after visiting a bank in Noida.

Later that day, the victim’s father told the police that the kidnappers called him and threatened to kill his daughter if he did not pay a ransom of ₹40,000.

The police immediately traced the kidnappers to Chhalera village in Noida and the next day a team rescued the victim and arrested the accused Simpal Srivastav and Shah Alam from the spot.

In its June 7 ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the charge sheet has already been filed in the case and there is no need to demand the Shah Alam accused, who has been in jail since 4 from September 2020.

Justice Mahajan said the examination-in-chief of the victim has already been recorded and since there are 23 witnesses, it will take a long time to conclude the trial.

Mr. Alam’s counsel argued that his client is a young man about 26 years of age and had no criminal antecedents, adding that he comes from a very poor family and has been in prison for a long time.

While the prosecution opposed the bail plea, the High Court remarked, “From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, ‘necessity’ is the operative test.”

The judge noted that “one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content”.

Scroll to Top