Writ Petition No. 57 of 1979. Case: Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. Vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 57 of 1979 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K. Hingorani, Adv. and For Respondents: Lal Narina Sinha, U. P. Singh and S. N. Jha, Adv. |
| Judges | A. N. Sen and P. N. Bhagwati, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 368 and 395; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 167(2), 167(5), 468 and 468(2) |
| Citation | 1979 BLJR 600, (1980) 1 SCC 93, [1979] 3 SCR 393, 1979 (11) UJ 775 (SC) |
| Judgement Date | February 26, 1979 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Order:
Bhagwati, J.
-
The Government of Bihar has filed before us a note containing the proposed clarification of paragraph 2(e) of the Government Order dated 9th February, 1979, pursuant to the suggestion made by us in our order dated 19th February, 1979. This clarification states in paragraph one that where the police investigation in a case has been delayed by over two years, the Superintendent of Police will see to it that the investigation is completed expeditiously and final report or charge-sheet is submitted by the police as quickly as possible and the responsibility to ensure this has been laid personally on the Superintendent of Police. We are glad to note that the State Government has responded to our suggestion but we are not at all sure whether it is enough merely to provide that the investigation would be completed expeditiously and the final report or charge-sheet submitted as quickly as possible. We are of the view that a reasonable time limit should be set by the State Government within which these steps should be taken, so that no further delay is occasioned in the submission of the final report or charge-sheet. We fail to see how any police investigation can take so long as two years and if police investigation cannot be completed within two years, then there must be something radically wrong with the police force in the State of Bihar. It appears that there are a number of cases where police investigation has not been completed for over two years and persons have been in jail as under-trial prisoners for long periods. This is a shocking state of affairs so far as the administration of law and order is concerned. We would, therefore, suggest that in those cases where police investigation has been delayed by over two years, the final report or charge-sheet must be submitted by the police within a further period of three months and if that is not done, the State Government might well withdraw such cases, because if after a period of over two years plus an additional period of three months, the police is not ab le to file a charge-sheet, one can reasonably assume that there is no case against the arrested persons.
-
The Government of Bihar has also filed a counter-affidavit made by Mr. Mrinmaya Choudhry, Assistant Inspector General of Prisons (1), Bihar setting out the particulars in regard to 18 under-trial who have been ordered to be released by us on their personal bond. The particulars given in this counter-affidavit make very distressing reading. It appears from this counter-affidavit that there are quite a few women prisoners who are in jail without even being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Criminal Writ Petn. No. 147 of 1999. Case: I. P. Shankaran Vs Dy. Superintendent of Police Bombay and others. High Court of Bombay (India)
...(ii) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 567, (iii) Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 and (1980) 1 SCC 93: (1979 Cri LJ 1036) and (iv) State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, AIR 1981 SC 1675: (1981 Cri LJ 1273). In the light of the ratio ......
-
W.P. No. 33241 (W) of 2013. Case: Ambikesh Mahapatra Vs State of West Bengal. High Court of Calcutta (India)
...337: (AIR 2006 SC 1946): R. D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P., (1986) 2 SCC 401: (AIR 1986 SC 991) Suk Das v. U.T. of Arunachal Pradesh, and (1980) 1 SCC 93: (AIR 1979 SC 1369) Hussainara Khatoon (3) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar. It, therefore, follows that holding one in protective custody......
-
ANOKHILAL vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. Supreme Court, 18-12-2019
...The nature ofthe offence and other circumstances in agiven case may be such that quashing of14 (1992) 1 SCC 22515 (1980) 1 SCC 8116 (1980) 1 SCC 9317 (1986) 4 SCC Criminal Appeal Nos.62-63 of 2014Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh32proceedings may not be in the interest ofjustice. In such......
-
MOHD. HUSSAIN @ JULFIKAR ALI vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI. Supreme Court, 31-08-2012
...that the provisions of the Code are consistent with the constitutional guarantee of speedy 5 6 7 8 9 (1992) 1 SCC 225 (1980) 1 SCC 81 (1980) 1 SCC 93 (1980) 1 SCC (1986) 4 SCC 481 13 Page 13 trial emanating from Article 21. In paragraph 86 of the Report, the Court framed guidelines. Sub-par......
-
Criminal Writ Petn. No. 147 of 1999. Case: I. P. Shankaran Vs Dy. Superintendent of Police Bombay and others. High Court of Bombay (India)
...(ii) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 567, (iii) Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 and (1980) 1 SCC 93: (1979 Cri LJ 1036) and (iv) State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, AIR 1981 SC 1675: (1981 Cri LJ 1273). In the light of the ratio ......
-
W.P. No. 33241 (W) of 2013. Case: Ambikesh Mahapatra Vs State of West Bengal. High Court of Calcutta (India)
...337: (AIR 2006 SC 1946): R. D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P., (1986) 2 SCC 401: (AIR 1986 SC 991) Suk Das v. U.T. of Arunachal Pradesh, and (1980) 1 SCC 93: (AIR 1979 SC 1369) Hussainara Khatoon (3) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar. It, therefore, follows that holding one in protective custody......
-
ANOKHILAL vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. Supreme Court, 18-12-2019
...The nature ofthe offence and other circumstances in agiven case may be such that quashing of14 (1992) 1 SCC 22515 (1980) 1 SCC 8116 (1980) 1 SCC 9317 (1986) 4 SCC Criminal Appeal Nos.62-63 of 2014Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh32proceedings may not be in the interest ofjustice. In such......
-
MOHD. HUSSAIN @ JULFIKAR ALI vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI. Supreme Court, 31-08-2012
...that the provisions of the Code are consistent with the constitutional guarantee of speedy 5 6 7 8 9 (1992) 1 SCC 225 (1980) 1 SCC 81 (1980) 1 SCC 93 (1980) 1 SCC (1986) 4 SCC 481 13 Page 13 trial emanating from Article 21. In paragraph 86 of the Report, the Court framed guidelines. Sub-par......