2018 (5) TMI 2152 - SC - Indian Laws

Bail not granted directing that the trial be concluded as far as possible within six months - whether there should be timelines for completing investigation? - HELD THAT - There is clear need for timelines for completing investigation and for having in-house oversight mechanism wherein accountability for adhering to laid down timelines can be fixed at a different levels in the hierarchy. To determine whether undue delay has occurred one must have regard to nature of offence number of Accused and witnesses workload of the court and the investigating agency systemic delays. Inordinate delay may be taken as presumptive proof of prejudice particularly when Accused is in custody so that prosecution does not become persecution. Court has to balance and weigh several relevant factors. Though it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribe any mandatory outer time limit and the court may only examine effect of delay in every individual case on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution there is certainly a need for in-house mechanism to ensure that there is no undue delay in completing investigation. It is well established that authorization for such detention has to be given having regard to the progress in investigation. Even a Magistrate cannot authorise detention in police custody beyond 15 days. After judicial custody for more than 90 days in serious cases stipulated therein and 60 days in other cases there is a provision for mandatory default bail requirement if there is delay in investigation beyond the said period - the need to lay down timelines for completing investigation with a view to give effect to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution. The learned ASG directed to represent the Union of India - the Ministry of Home Affairs directed to have inter action on the subject with all the Central and State investigating agencies on or before May 31 2018 either on video conferencing or in person. The points emerging from the inter action may be recorded and examined by an appropriate committee which may constituted for the purpose. Put up the matter for further consideration on 3rd July 2018.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Modification of bail order due to delay in investigation by CBI
2. Need for timelines for completing investigations to ensure speedy trial
3. Accountability and oversight mechanism for investigating agencies
4. Constitutional mandate for speedy trial under Article 21
5. Remedial steps for undue delay in investigation
6. Impleadment of Union of India and directions for interaction on the subject
7. Formation of a committee to examine the points emerging from the interaction
8. Reporting back to the court by the committee by a specified date

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed an application by the CBI seeking modification of a previous bail order due to delays in investigation. The case involved mob violence during a 'jat agitation' where the petitioner was accused of being the leader. Despite the CBI taking over the investigation in October 2016, significant time had passed without substantial progress. The court emphasized the importance of timely investigations as part of the fundamental right to fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. The court highlighted the necessity of setting timelines for completing investigations to ensure the timely commencement and conclusion of trials. It noted that undue delays in investigations can hinder the administration of criminal justice. The court directed the CBI to complete its investigation within two months to allow the trial to commence by a specified date, emphasizing the need for accountability and efficiency in the investigative process.

3. Recognizing the implicit right to speedy trial under Article 21, the court stressed the importance of timely investigation, inquiry, and trial proceedings. It emphasized the need for an in-house oversight mechanism within investigating agencies to ensure adherence to prescribed timelines. The court cited previous judgments to support the obligation for expeditious investigations to prevent undue delays that could lead to prejudice against the accused.

4. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions governing detention and bail requirements based on the progress of investigations. It underscored the need for remedial steps in cases of undue delays, referencing specific sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure that regulate detention periods and mandatory bail requirements in cases of prolonged investigations. The court emphasized the importance of laying down clear timelines for completing investigations to uphold the constitutional mandate of speedy trial.

5. In response to the issues raised, the court impleaded the Union of India as a party and directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to engage with central and state investigating agencies to address the delays in investigations. A committee was to be formed to examine the points raised during the interaction and submit a report by a specified date. The court emphasized the importance of collecting data on pending investigations exceeding one year and developing an action plan to expedite their completion within a proposed timeframe.

6. The comprehensive judgment highlighted the critical need for efficient and timely investigations to ensure the effective administration of criminal justice. By addressing the issues of accountability, oversight, and adherence to prescribed timelines, the court aimed to uphold the constitutional right to speedy trial and prevent undue delays that could impact the rights of the accused. The directive to engage with investigating agencies and formulate an action plan underscored the court's commitment to promoting a fair and expeditious criminal justice system.