Embargo On Bail In Death Or Life Imprisonment Cases Cannot Supersede Right To Speedy Trial: J&K High Court

Granting bail to one Raman Kumar, the petitioner, who had been incarcerated for over 13 years without his trial being concluded a bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed,

“While considering the bar for grant of bail in offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, a proper balance is required to be maintained to ensure that the right of the accused to speedy trial is not violated”

Kumar was arrested in 2011 in connection with the murder of one Netar Singh. The police investigation revealed that Kumar had an alleged illicit relationship with co-accused Neelam Rani, which led to enmity with the deceased. As per the prosecution, both the accused conspired and murdered Netar Singh.

The charges against them were framed under Sections 302/34, 201 RPC, and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Despite the passage of more than 13 years, the trial remained pending, with final arguments being delayed for over five years.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vivek Sharma, argued that Kumar's prolonged detention violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial. He highlighted that the trial court had been without a presiding officer, resulting in delays, and despite numerous hearings, final arguments had yet to conclude.

He further pointed out that the petitioner had been in custody for more than 13 years, and the trial had been pending arguments for five years and this he contended, was a gross violation of the petitioner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

On the other hand, Mr. Vishal Bharti, the Deputy Advocate General representing the respondent, opposed the bail application. He argued that since the petitioner was charged with a grave offence punishable by death or life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), there was a statutory bar on granting bail.

Justice Oswal thoroughly examined the trial's progress and expressed grave concerns over the delays. The court noted that the prosecution had delayed the proceedings without sufficient justification, and the trial court had failed to ensure timely disposal of the case.

The prosecution had closed its evidence in 2014 but later sought to introduce additional witnesses, leading to further delays. The court observed that despite the prosecution being granted multiple opportunities, the evidence was finally closed only in 2018, and arguments had not been concluded even by 2024.

“This is admitted fact that the petitioner has been in custody for the last more than 13 years. The manner, in which the trial has been conducted in this chargesheet, is quite shocking and disturbing. Whereas the prosecution has delayed the trial without any justification, the learned trial court too has miserably failed to ensure that the trial is completed within reasonable time frame”, the bench remarked.

Criticising the manner in which adjournments were granted by the trial court, allowing the prosecution to prolong the case, Justice Oswal reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 and cannot be compromised due to procedural delays. The court also cited the Supreme Court's observation that bail is not to be withheld as a form of punishment, especially when the trial is unduly prolonged.

Acknowledging that the prolonged incarceration, coupled with the prosecution's delays warranted relief, the bench allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner on bail.

Case Title: Raman Kumar Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 254

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment