Right To Speedy Trial Cannot Be Taken Away Citing Heinousness Of Crime: Rajasthan High Court Releases Murder Accused After 3 Years
Nupur Agarwal
23 July 2024 2:40 PM GMT
Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to an accused charged for murder on the grounds of protracted trial. The court observed that right to have a speedy trial was guaranteed by the Constitution of India and it could not be taken away from the accused for the reason of seriousness or heinousness of the crime. It is imperative for the prosecution to adduce evidence at the earliest if the accused is languishing in jail, it added.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing the bail application by the accused who was in jail for the offence under Section 302, IPC, since 2021. It was observed that in total 30 witnesses had to be examined by the prosecution, however, till date only 12 were examined.
“Looking to the snail's pace progress of the trial, it can be assumed that a further more time will be consumed in completion of the trial. As on date, it cannot be speculated that how more time will be taken in completion of the judicial proceedings. This Court is of the view that an accused cannot be kept behind the bars in a pending trial for want of production of evidence against him.”
The Court placed heavy reliance on the case of Laxman Ram v State in which the right to grant bail in case of protraction of trial was elaborated and discussed in great detail.
The Case observed that apart from nature and gravity of offence as well as the material on record, the fact that the trial needs to be concluded within a reasonable period of time also needed to be taken into account while considering a bail application. It was opined that innocent until proven guilty i.e. innocence at the pre-conviction stage was the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, detention at that stage was not supposed to be punitive or preventive in nature. In this light, the case made an important observation and ruled that at the pre-conviction stage, arrest is warranted by necessity and jail is an exception not a rule.
The case also recognized the fundamental right of speedy trial and opined that it was not merely a fundamental right but also a human right since it protects against incarceration for indefinite period.
“As per the fundamental rights granted to every citizen/person by the Constitution of India, the accused cannot be expected to languish in custody for an indefinite period if the trial is taking unreasonably long time to reach the stage of conclusion. An under trial prisoner, who is waiting for the trial to complete and reach a conclusion about his guilt for the alleged crime, is not only deprived of his right to a speedy trial but his other fundamental rights like right to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of practising a profession or carrying on any occupation, business or trade and freedom to dignify are also hampered.”
The Court ruled that justice was not presumed to be administered merely on passing a judgment of conviction, rather it was presumed to have been administered completely when the trial was concluded within a reasonable period of time.
It also made mention of the Supreme Court case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Govt. of Bihar, Patna in which the Supreme Court had not only recognized right to speedy trial as part of right to life under Article 21 but had also issued a set of guidelines to ensure that the trial and sessions courts take lesser time to conclude the trial.
Court further stated while the accused is behind bars, the prosecution could be given only a reasonable period to lead evidence. Reasonable period could be understood as one year or maximum two years in case of certain unavoidable circumstances. Granting of unreasonable period of time infringes on the fundamental rights of the accused. Hence, if the trial was pending for more than a reasonable period of time, the accused should be released on bail unless extraordinary and overwhelming circumstances prevail.
After analyzing the proposition of law as elaborated by the aforementioned case, the Court felt that it was necessary to protect the liberty of the accused since there was a high probability of the trial still taking a long time to conclude. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed.
Title: Kailash Chand v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 168
