2017 (3) TMI 1392 - SC - Indian Laws

Denial of bail pending trial/appeal where appellants have been in custody for a long period - Held that - We do consider it necessary to direct that steps be taken forthwith by all concerned to effectuate the mandate of the fundamental right under Article 21 especially with regard to persons in custody in view of the directions already issued by this Court. It is desirable that each High Court frames its annual action plan fixing a tentative time limit for subordinate courts for deciding criminal trials of persons in custody and other long pending cases and monitors implementation of such timelines periodically. The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that (a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week; (b) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years; (c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year; (d) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time; (e) The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports. (emphasis added) (ii) The High Courts are requested to ensure that bail applications filed before them are decided as far as possible within one month and criminal appeals where accused are in custody for more than five years are concluded at the earliest; (iii) The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor appropriate action plans for the subordinate courts; (iv) The High Courts may monitor steps for speedy investigation and trials on administrative and judicial side from time to time; (v) The High Courts may take such stringent measures as may be found necessary in the light of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal (2002 (12) TMI 562 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) .

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of bail pending trial/appeal due to prolonged custody.
2. Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Implementation of Section 436A Cr.P.C.
4. Directions for expeditious disposal of criminal cases and appeals.
5. Monitoring and administrative measures for speedy trial.
6. Role of High Courts in ensuring timely justice.
7. Recommendations for judicial and administrative reforms.

Detailed Analysis:

I. Denial of Bail Pending Trial/Appeal Due to Prolonged Custody
1. The appellants in the first case have been in custody since August 4, 2013, under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, and their bail application was dismissed. In the second case, the appellant has been in custody since January 11, 2009, convicted under Section 302 IPC, with his bail application dismissed pending appeal.
2. The appellants argue for bail based on prolonged custody, invoking their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Reference was made to Section 436A Cr.P.C., which allows bail if detention exceeds half the maximum prescribed imprisonment, but it was noted that this provision applies only during the trial and not in the first case as the requisite detention period was not met.
4. For the second case, precedents like Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P. and Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh v. State of Punjab were cited, which suggest granting bail if the appeal is not heard for five years, excluding delays caused by the accused. However, this case was not covered as the appeal was from 2013.
5. The Court directed the pending trial in the first case and the appeal in the second case to be disposed of within six months, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.

II. Right to Speedy Trial Under Article 21
1. The Court reiterated that a speedy trial is a part of the reasonable, fair, and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21, and financial constraints cannot justify its denial.
2. Directions were issued to augment and strengthen judicial infrastructure, including setting up new courts, appointing additional judges, and providing necessary staff and equipment.
3. The Court emphasized that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring a speedy trial is inconsistent with Article 21. Prolonged detention without trial undermines public confidence in the justice system.
4. The Court cited various precedents, including Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, and Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing undertrial prisoners v. Union of India, highlighting the need for timely justice as a human right.

III. Implementation of Section 436A Cr.P.C.
1. The Court noted that despite Section 436A Cr.P.C., which mandates bail for undertrials who have served half the maximum sentence, many undertrials remain in custody beyond the prescribed period.
2. The Court directed jurisdictional Magistrates and Sessions Judges to hold weekly sittings in jails to ensure compliance with Section 436A.
3. The Court also referenced the advisory issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the constitution of review committees in every district to oversee the implementation of Section 436A.

IV. Directions for Expeditious Disposal of Criminal Cases and Appeals
1. The Court emphasized the need for High Courts to prioritize the disposal of cases pending for more than five years and to take steps to expedite criminal appeals, especially where the accused are in custody.
2. The Court directed High Courts to establish Arrears Committees and prepare action plans to clear backlogs, with specific targets for disposing of old cases and cases involving undertrials in custody.
3. The Court suggested that bail applications should be disposed of within one week in subordinate courts and within one month in High Courts.

V. Monitoring and Administrative Measures for Speedy Trial
1. The Court highlighted the importance of monitoring the implementation of action plans and the performance of judicial officers, with regular reviews and performance appraisals based on the timely disposal of cases.
2. The Court suggested measures like minimizing adjournments, setting up adequate forensic laboratories, and using video conferencing for examining witnesses to reduce delays.
3. The Court also recommended amendments to the Cr.P.C. to allow for the tendering of evidence by medical witnesses in a manner similar to Section 293 Cr.P.C.

VI. Role of High Courts in Ensuring Timely Justice
1. The Court reiterated the responsibility of High Courts to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases and to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts.
2. The Court requested Chief Justices of all High Courts to take appropriate steps consistent with the directions issued by the Supreme Court and to have a monitoring mechanism in place for speeding up the disposal of cases involving undertrials and long-pending appeals.

VII. Recommendations for Judicial and Administrative Reforms
1. The Court emphasized the need for judicial and administrative reforms, including the creation of additional courts and infrastructure, to address the backlog of cases and ensure timely justice.
2. The Court highlighted the importance of cooperation between the judiciary and the executive in implementing these reforms and ensuring adequate funding and resources for the judiciary.
3. The Court also addressed the issue of strikes and abstention from work by lawyers, calling for strict monitoring and measures to prevent such disruptions to court proceedings.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and issued comprehensive directions for expediting the disposal of criminal cases and appeals. The Court highlighted the need for judicial and administrative reforms, regular monitoring by High Courts, and cooperation between the judiciary and the executive to ensure timely justice. The Court also addressed the issue of prolonged custody without trial and the implementation of Section 436A Cr.P.C. to prevent undue detention of undertrials.

← Previous Next →