2020 (9) TMI 1279 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of interim bail - Right to speedy trial - conducting illegal mining of iron ore - Whether right to speedy trial which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a remote control in the hands of prosecution prosecuting an accused in a criminal case so that it can take the trial speedily whenever it desires and slow it down to create frightening moments for the accused to carry an impression that he is fighting an endless battle? Can an accused be left to become a puppet in the hands of the prosecuting agency? Will the trial Court remain as a silent spectator when either from the side of the prosecution or accused dillydallying or shilly-shallying attitude is adopted for some oblique purposes? HELD THAT - If the order sheet of the learned trial Court is perused from 05.09.2019 onwards till the end of December 2019 it cannot be said that the delay which was caused was unavoidable or on account of any administrative factors over which the prosecution has no control. During the said period the trial court was functioning normally and no adjournment was sought for from the side of the petitioner and therefore the delay which has been caused by the trial Court even after the receipt of the order this Court on 22.08.2019 passed in BLAPL No.1053 of 2019 in my humble view is unreasonable and unexplained. Of course after the last two witnesses i.e. P.W.24 and 25 were examined on 4.01.2020 the Presiding Officer was transferred on 10.01.2020 and the new Presiding Officer joined on 23.03.2020 and then the lock-down was imposed in the State since 23.03.2020 which was extended from time to time and during the said period there was restricted functioning of the Subordinate Courts in the State as per the direction of this Court and no summons were issued to witnesses during the said period and now the letter dated 10.09.2020 of the learned trial Court makes it clear that the normal functioning of the Court has not been restored. The trial Court shall take all possible steps to stop the dillydallying or shilly-shallying attitude adopted either from the side of the prosecution or accused and ensure that the constitutional right of speedy trial of the accused as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not flouted causing mockery of the trial. It seems unnecessary lengthy cross examination has been made by different set of defence counsel to the witnesses to make it a gallery show which needs to be regulated by the learned trial Court keeping in view the provisions under sections 146 148 150 151 152 and 165 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. In absence of any substantial change of circumstances after the rejection of the last bail application on merit and particularly since there is strong prima facie case against the petitioner relating to his involvement in the commission of grave economic offence I am not inclined to reconsider his prayer for bail on merit and release him on bail pending disposal of trial - the petitioner is entitled for grant of interim bail with the terms and conditions imposed. Bail application disposed off.

Issues Involved:

1. Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Repeated bail applications and their grounds.
3. Allegations and charges against the petitioner.
4. Judicial custody and trial delays.
5. Arguments for and against bail.
6. Previous bail applications and their outcomes.
7. Interim bail considerations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India:

The petitioner questioned whether the right to a speedy trial, derived from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, can be manipulated by the prosecution to delay the trial and create undue hardship for the accused. The Court emphasized that an accused cannot be left at the mercy of the prosecuting agency and that the trial court should not remain passive when either party adopts delaying tactics.

2. Repeated Bail Applications and Their Grounds:

The petitioner had approached the Court for bail six times, with five previous applications being rejected. The petitioner argued that despite directions from the Court to expedite the trial, there had been significant delays, and he had been in custody for seven years. The petitioner contended that the prosecution was deliberately delaying the trial, thus converting his detention into pretrial punishment.

3. Allegations and Charges Against the Petitioner:

The petitioner was accused of being involved in illegal mining activities, causing a loss of approximately Rs. 1523 crores to the government exchequer. He faced charges under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code, including conspiracy, cheating, and criminal breach of trust.

4. Judicial Custody and Trial Delays:

The petitioner had been in judicial custody since 05.09.2013. Despite directions from the Court to expedite the trial, only twenty-five witnesses had been examined over three years since the charges were framed. The Court noted that the trial had not progressed substantially due to the lack of sincere efforts from the prosecution.

5. Arguments for and Against Bail:

The petitioner's counsel argued that the prosecution's case was unfounded and that the petitioner had deep roots in society, making him neither a flight risk nor likely to tamper with evidence. The State's counsel opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the economic offense and the petitioner's potential to influence witnesses.

6. Previous Bail Applications and Their Outcomes:

The Court reviewed the outcomes of the petitioner's previous bail applications, noting that they were rejected due to the seriousness of the offense, the potential for tampering with evidence, and the lack of substantial change in circumstances. The Court had directed the trial court to expedite the trial, but the trial had not progressed as expected.

7. Interim Bail Considerations:

The Court considered the petitioner's prolonged detention and the slow progress of the trial. Given the lack of substantial progress in the trial and the petitioner's compliance with previous interim bail conditions, the Court granted interim bail with specific conditions, including a substantial cash security and restrictions on the petitioner's movements and activities.

Conclusion:

The Court emphasized the need for a balance between the right to a speedy trial and the interests of justice. It granted interim bail to the petitioner, considering his prolonged detention and the slow progress of the trial, while imposing stringent conditions to ensure his presence and prevent tampering with evidence. The Court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial and adhere to the provisions of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.

← Previous Next →