Latest News
Back
Document:
Judgement Analysis: Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702
Facts: The appellants in one case have been in the custody since 4th August 2013 on the allegation of having committed the offence under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and whose bail applications in the trial court were dismissed while the other was in custody since 11th January 2009 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The high court in this case also dismissed the bail application following which the accused approached the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- With regards to custody for a long period of time, whether they are entitled to bail.
- Whether they are entitled to a speedy trial is their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Petitioner: The counsel for the petitioner based the arguments on the right under Section 436A Cr.P.C. which provides for the grant of bail for the accused convicted of an offence has undergone the detention up to one half of maximum prescribed imprisonment.
The counsel argued over the bail while referring to the judgement in Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh v. the State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387 where the court held that bail should normally be granted in case the appeal for bail is not heard for 5 years where delays due to appellant are not included.
He further referred to the judgement of the court in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay and ors. v. R.S. Nayak and anr (1992) 1 SCC 225 where the court held right to a speedy trial to be part and participle of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Respondent: The respondent counsel shrugged of the arguments over the bail under section 436A Cr.P.C. as the appellant has not undergone the requisite detention period as provided for under the said provision. The respondents also voiced their concern over the competency of the court to give directions over time bounding other courts over the completion of proceedings.
Judgement: The court denied to decide over the merits of the appeal for bail as the case was already pending before the High Court but recognising the right of the appellant to speedy trial ordered for the completion of proceedings before the High Court within 6 months.
The court took notice of the issue and its frequency, the court took into consideration the need for authoritative instructions over the matter since the speedy trial is already a recognised part of the reasonable, fair and just procedure as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. A right guaranteed under Article 21 cannot be restrained on the ground of non-availability or restraints relating to the financial resources. The court referred to the judgement of the court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (1980) 1 SCC 98 reiterated the competence of the court to issue directions with regards to investigative machinery or setting-up of new courts, providing more staff and other measures as are required for a speedy trial. The court also pointed out the guidelines given by the court to the High courts in the Hussainara Khatoon and ors. (VII) etc. v. Home Secretary, Bihar and ors. (1995) 5 SCC 326 for the speedy trial and said that deprivation of personal liberty while undermining speedy trial is violative of Article 21.
The court also took notice of the Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016) 3 SCC 700 where the reference was made to the guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs for implementation of Section 436A, Cr. PC. whereby instituting a review committee in every district headed by the respective District Judge. The court also took reference of the Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors (2012) 2 SCC 688 where it was noted that around 21% cases of serious cases like murder, rape, kidnapping and dacoiting were pending for more than 10 years for the major reason of stay orders and therefore ordered for disposal of cases with stay orders to be finished within 6 months of that order. The court ordered for use of modern technological logistics like video conferencing etc to examine the evidence and reports, examine scientific experts, electronic service of summons etc and issue timelines for disposal of bail matters at every level as required.
The court also reiterated the stance in the judgement Ex. Captain Harish Uppal versus Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 which called for the illegality of the strikes/abstaining of work by lawyers and other people of legal fraternity which result in obstruction of Court proceedings and reduction of events of condolences by holding such references ones in every two to three months. Lastly, the court highlighted the need and the responsibility of the everyone belonging to the judicial fraternity to understand the fact that justice delayed is justice denied and it is the constitutional responsibility of the State also to provide with all the necessary infrastructure for the monitoring of the smooth functioning of lower courts for timely disposal of cases and timely serving of justice.
Conclusion: The court thereby ordered the High Courts to order and ensure every subordinate court disposes of bail application within one week and disposes of every case within 5 years and finishing od magisterial trial within 6 months and sessions trial within 2 years where accused is in custody. In the last, it ordered for the conclusion of the cases at earliest where 5 years have already passed by in either of the high court or any subordinate court and supplemented the Section 436A of Cr.P.C. that in case undertrial has completed custody more than what would have likely been awarded as sentence then should be released at earliest on personal bond.
Document:
