2009 (9) TMI 1092 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Delay in criminal trials and appeals.
2. Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Entitlement to bail for under-trials and suspension of sentence for convicts.
4. Guidelines for granting bail and suspension of sentence.
5. Establishment of a "Criminal Justice Monitoring Board."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Criminal Trials and Appeals:

The judgment highlights the significant delays in the criminal justice system, particularly in the states of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory, Chandigarh. The case of Dalip Singh is used as an example where the trial took more than 6-1/2 years to record 28 pages of prosecution evidence. The judgment criticizes the lack of accountability and coordination among the police, prosecution, and judiciary, leading to prolonged trials and appeals. The court emphasizes the need for a systematic approach to address these delays, suggesting the establishment of a "Criminal Justice Monitoring Board" to oversee and expedite the process.

2. Right to a Speedy Trial Under Article 21 of the Constitution:

The court reiterates that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution, as recognized by the Supreme Court in several landmark judgments. This right extends to all stages of criminal proceedings, including investigation, trial, and appeal. The judgment cites cases like Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and others to emphasize that while no fixed time frame can be prescribed for trials, the burden lies on the prosecution to justify any delay. The court stresses that delays should not prejudice the accused and that the right to a speedy trial serves both individual and societal interests.

3. Entitlement to Bail for Under-trials and Suspension of Sentence for Convicts:

The judgment discusses the entitlement of under-trials to bail when trials are unduly prolonged and the conditions under which convicts can have their sentences suspended pending appeal. It refers to the principles laid down in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, which provided time frames for the release of convicts pending appeals. The court acknowledges the need for flexibility, stating that each case should be considered on its own facts and circumstances. It suggests that under-trials should be considered for bail if the trial is not nearing conclusion after 180 days, provided they do not pose a risk of tampering with evidence or absconding.

4. Guidelines for Granting Bail and Suspension of Sentence:

The judgment outlines several guidelines for granting bail to under-trials and suspending sentences for convicts. It suggests that the nature of the offense, the manner of its execution, the accused's conduct, and the potential for misuse of bail should be considered. The court also addresses the issue of repeated bail applications, directing that under-trials and convicts should have only one hearing for bail on merits and another based on long custody. The judgment emphasizes that the guidelines are illustrative and not exhaustive, allowing for judicial discretion based on the specific circumstances of each case.

5. Establishment of a "Criminal Justice Monitoring Board":

The court supports the suggestion to establish a "Criminal Justice Monitoring Board" comprising the heads of police, prosecution, and prisons. This board would regularly monitor trial progress and address delays due to infrastructure or manpower issues. The court believes that such a board would ensure better coordination among the various limbs of the criminal justice system and uphold the right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the systemic issues causing delays in the criminal justice process and emphasizes the need for reforms to ensure the timely administration of justice while safeguarding the rights of the accused.