Courts Should Actively Protect Right To Speedy Trial Of Accused Instead Of Waking Up Too Late And Lamenting The Delay: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Thursday said that it is crucial for courts to recognise and be conscious of the right of an accused to speedy trial and to prevent the same from being defeated, rather than wake-up much too late and lament that such right has been defeated.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted bail to a man in a cheating case, observing that trial will take a long time to conclude.

The Court said that the accused had already suffered more than one year of judicial custody and had been exposed to 'prisonisation', adding that there was no cogent basis to satisfy the test of 'necessity' for his continued detention.

“How long is long enough, before a court realises that an undertrial has been in custody for too long, and the constitutional promise of speedy trial has been repudiated ? It is this concern that is at the heart of the present judgement,” the Court said.

The man was accused of acting as a conduit for the other accused persons to channel and siphon-off funds lying unclaimed with the Customs Department, which were routed through certain bank accounts.

The FIR was registered in 2023 by Economic Offences Wing, Delhi for the offences under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Granting bail to the man, the Court said that there was no allegation that the accused himself was involved in forging any scroll or cheque or other document relating to the Customs Department.

“There is also no material on record to prima-facie show that the petitioner was aware either of the 'nature' of the money that was being routed through the bank account(s) or of the scale or quantum of the offences allegedly committed by the other accused persons,” the Court said.

It added that the chargesheet alongwith the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution ran into 10,000 pages; but charges were yet to be framed against the accused and trial was yet to commence.

“The petitioner's nominal roll shows that he has already suffered judicial custody for about 13 months. However, regardless of the maximum punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioner, the court must never lose sight of the fact that, as of now, the petitioner is only an accused pending trial and has not been held guilty for any offences as of date. As argued on behalf of the petitioner, he cannot be detained in custody endlessly awaiting completion of trial,” the Court said.

Title: Amit Agrawal v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 499

Click here to read order