1987 (2) TMI 533 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant or refusal of bail in substantive appeals on capital charges.
2. Delay in the hearing of appeals.
3. Constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
4. Conditions in jails and their impact on bail considerations.
5. Legal and judicial guidelines for granting bail during the pendency of appeals.
6. The role of the judiciary in balancing individual liberty with societal interests.
7. The impact of prolonged incarceration on the accused and the legal system.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant or Refusal of Bail in Substantive Appeals on Capital Charges:
The judgment addresses the necessity for certainty and uniformity in the discretionary arena of granting or refusing bail in substantive appeals on capital charges. The petitioner, convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 333 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, was sentenced to life imprisonment and denied bail during the trial. His co-appellants were granted bail, but he was not, as he was considered the main assailant.

2. Delay in the Hearing of Appeals:
The petitioner renewed his bail request due to the prolonged delay in the hearing of his appeal. The court noted that delays in hearing appeals for capital offenses within the High Court necessitated firm judicial guidelines. The judgment emphasizes that delays in hearing appeals, caused by the court's own limitations, are a significant issue that must be addressed.

3. Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial under Article 21:
The judgment extensively discusses the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, which includes the expeditious disposal of substantive appeals. It is highlighted that prolonged incarceration during the pendency of appeals, when caused by the court's inability to hear the appeals promptly, violates the spirit of the right to a speedy trial.

4. Conditions in Jails and Their Impact on Bail Considerations:
The judgment acknowledges the sub-human conditions prevalent in jails, particularly in Bihar, which further justify the need for granting bail during the pendency of appeals. It is noted that the prison conditions are deplorable, and prolonged incarceration in such conditions is inhumane.

5. Legal and Judicial Guidelines for Granting Bail During the Pendency of Appeals:
The judgment establishes that the issue of delay in hearing appeals is directly relevant for the grant of bail. It is held that the reasonable period for hearing such appeals should not exceed one year. If the High Court cannot hear the appeal within this period, the appellant should be granted bail unless there are cogent grounds for acting otherwise.

6. The Role of the Judiciary in Balancing Individual Liberty with Societal Interests:
The judgment emphasizes the judiciary's role in balancing individual liberty with societal interests. It is noted that while the right to bail should be considered, it should not be granted in cases involving particularly heinous crimes that shock the conscience of society. Such cases should be heard out of turn and disposed of within one year.

7. The Impact of Prolonged Incarceration on the Accused and the Legal System:
The judgment highlights the irreparable harm caused by prolonged incarceration, particularly when the accused is ultimately acquitted. It is noted that the legal system does not provide adequate compensation for such wrongful imprisonment, and the lost years cannot be compensated in monetary terms.

Separate Judgments:

Concurring Judgment:
N.P. Singh, J., concurs with the judgment, agreeing with the principles and guidelines established for granting bail during the pendency of appeals.

Dissenting Judgment:
S.H.S. Abidi, J., dissents, disagreeing with the principle that an appellant should be considered for bail if the appeal is not disposed of within one year. He argues that fixing a rigid period for granting bail without considering the merits of the case is not appropriate. He emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that considers both individual liberty and societal interests.

Conclusion:
The judgment establishes important guidelines for granting bail during the pendency of appeals in capital cases, emphasizing the constitutional right to a speedy trial and the need to address delays in the judicial system. It balances individual rights with societal interests and highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring justice.