Some Accountability Should Be Fixed On Courts To Complete Trial In Cases Of Prolonged Incarceration: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has expressed strong displeasure at the lack of effort by prosecuting agencies and trail judges to ensure timely completion of criminal trials resulting in prolonged incarceration of the accused.

Justice Bharati Dangare granted bail to a murder accused incarcerated for over seven years in a case requiring examination of just 10 witnesses. Despite expediting the trial, a year ago, there was no progress, the court noted.

“Time and again, I have expressed that some accountability deserves to be fixed and when I say accountability it is not only procedural one but possibly on the courts, who are in seized of such trials and particularly when the accused are incarcerated for such a long time.”

In the present case the accused was arrested in 2016 and booked under sections 302, 452 of the IPC. Five witnesses were examined till last year and the court had directed completion of trial within the next six months.

The High Court had asked the trial court to hearing the matter on a daily basis despite which there was no progress.

“The order passed by the higher Court, when it direct that the Judge shall fix the trial on day to day basis, do not indicate that the Judge shall only fill the pages of Roznama and record the happenings that the witness are absent or the accused is not produced from Jail.”

The court said, the prosecution takes the onus fixed on it too lightly, as the concerned Public Prosecutor had not ensured presence of its witnesses on the dates when the court fixed the trial and secondly court failed to secure presence of the accused on the relevant dates.

As a result, the accused continues to remain incarcerated and await culmination of his trial. “If he succeeds and is acquitted, the question which he ask the entire system is why he was being incarcerated pending his trial and that too almost 7 years.”

In the present case, the High Court observed the trial judge had not bothered to pass a speaking order imposing some responsibility upon the prosecution or the jail authority for non-production of the accused. Neither were efforts taken to secure the presence of the witness.

“This is one but many of the cases with the similar scenario. For the last one year the trial has not progressed and though attempts have been made by me to call for explanation from the prisons or the concerned Judge, it definitely did not yield any result,” the bench added.

Justice Dangre further said that with the “snail-speed progress of the trial” she was “unable to comprehend as to who should be blamed.”

“Repeatedly, constitutional courts have identified right of an accused for a speedy trial, which is envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution and no explanation being found from any of the institution, whether it is the Prosecuting Agency or the Trial Court, the only way to assure him, of his right, is a decision to release him on bail.”

Observing that criminal trials expedited by higher courts were progressing at snails’ pace, the Bombay High Court ordered the release of a murder accused on bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration.