Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4437 of 2016) and Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 348 of 2017). Case: Hussain and Ors. Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4437 of 2016) and Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 348 of 2017) |
| Judges | A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, JJ. |
| Issue | Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 207, 208, 293, 436A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC) - Sections 87, 88, 339B, 339B(1); Constitution of India - Article 21 |
| Citation | 2017 (3) SCALE 460 |
| Judgement Date | March 09, 2017 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
A.K. Goel, J.
I
1. Leave granted. Grievance in these appeals is against denial of bail pending trial/appeal where Appellants have been in custody for a long period.
2. In the first case, the Appellants have been in the custody since 4th August, 2013 on the allegation of having committed offence Under Section 21(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act). Their bail application, pending trial, has been dismissed. In the second case, the Appellant is in custody since 11th January, 2009. He has been convicted by the trial court Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. His bail application has been dismissed by the High Court pending appeal. The Appellants contend that, having regard to the long period of custody, they are entitled to bail as speedy trial is their fundamental right Under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. To consider the question as to the circumstances in which bail can be granted on the ground of delayed proceedings when a person is in custody, notice was also issued to learned Attorney General and Mr. Siddharth Luthra Senior Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, the learned amicus and the learned Additional Solicitor General.
5. During the hearing reference has been made to the decisions of this Court dealing with the issue and reference has also been made to Section 436A Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for grant of bail when a person has undergone detention upto one half of maximum prescribed imprisonment. It was submitted that the said provision applies only during trial and the first case is not covered by the said provision as the Appellant therein has not undergone the requisite detention period to claim bail under the said provision.
6. With regard to grant of bail, pending appeal, reference has been made to decisions of this Court in Akhtari Bi (Smt.) v. State of M.P. (2001) 4 SCC 355 and Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387 which provides that if the appeal is not heard for 5 years, excluding the delay for which the Accused himself is responsible, bail should normally be granted. The second case is not covered by the said judgment as the pending appeal in the High Court is of the year 2013.
7. In Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors. v. R.S. Nayak and Anr. (1992) 1 SCC 225-Para 86 while holding that speedy trial at all stages is part of right Under Article 21, it was held that if there is violation of right of speedy trial, instead of quashing the proceedings, a higher court can direct conclusion of proceedings in a fixed time. In the light of these principles, the present appeals can be disposed of by directing that the pending trial in the first case and the appeal in the second case may be disposed of within six months. We order accordingly and dispose of the matters to the extent of grievance in the two cases.
II
8. However, since the issue is arising frequently, inspite of earlier directions of this Court, further consideration has become necessary in the interest of administration of justice and for enforcement of fundamental right Under Article 21.
9. As already noticed, speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed Under Article 21. This constitutional right cannot be denied even on the plea of non-availability of financial resources. The court is entitled to issue directions to augment and strengthen investigating machinery, setting-up of new courts, building new court houses, providing more staff and equipment to the courts, appointment of additional judges and other measures as are necessary for speedy trial1.
10. Directions given by this Court in Hussainara Khatoon (supra) to this effect were left to be implemented by the High Courts2 are as follows:
2. Since this Court has already laid down the guidelines by orders passed from time to time in this writ petition and in subsequent orders passed in different cases since then, we do not consider it necessary to restate the guidelines periodically because the enforcement of the guidelines by the subordinate courts functioning in different States should now be the responsibility of the different High Courts to which they are subordinate. General orders for release of undertrials without reference to specific fact-situations in different cases may prove to be hazardous. While there can be no doubt that undertrial prisoners should not languish in jails on account of refusal to enlarge them on bail for want of their capacity to furnish bail with monetary obligations, these are matters which have to be dealt with on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by this Court in the orders passed in this writ petition and in subsequent cases from time to time. Sympathy for the undertrials who are in jail for long terms on account of the pendency of cases has to be balanced having regard to the impact of crime, more particularly, serious crime, on society and these considerations have to be weighed having regard to the fact-situations in pending cases. While there can be no doubt that trials of those Accused of crimes should be disposed of as early as possible, general orders in regard to judge strength of subordinate judiciary in each State must be attended to, and its functioning overseen, by the High Court of the State concerned. We share the sympathetic concern of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that undertrials should not languish in jails for long spells merely on account of their inability to meet monetary obligations. We are, however, of the view that such monitoring can be done more effectively by the High Courts since it would be easy for that Court to collect and collate the statistical information in that behalf, apply the broad guidelines already issued and deal with the situation as it emerges from the status reports presented to it. The role of the High Court is to ensure that the guidelines issued by this Court are implemented in letter and spirit. We think it would suffice if we request the Chief Justices of the High Courts to undertake a review of such cases in their States and give appropriate directions...
To continue reading
Request your trial