Delay In Trial: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man Who Spent 10 Years In Custody Without Conclusion Of Trial

The Supreme Court has granted bail to a man who spent 10 years in custody without conclusion of trial. The man shall be produced before the Trial Court within 1 week, to be discharged on appropriate terms and conditions, after hearing the Public Prosecutor.

The Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order considering that the man (appellant) had undergone 10 years of incarceration, while witnesses remained to be examined. It was in fact informed during the hearing by the Public Prosecutor of the case that 6 more official witnesses were sought to be examined.

Displeased, Justice Oka could be heard saying, "10 years have gone...in 10 years, how many witnesses have been examined?" The State counsel replied, "21".

After the hearing, the order was dictated thus: "The appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of more than 10 years. Now learned counsel appearing for the State, on the basis of instructions from the learned Public Prosecutor, states that State wants to examine 6 more official witnesses. The way trial has progressed and repeatedly the High Court has granted extension of time...in the facts of the case, we find that now incarceration of the appellant cannot continue."

Though bail was granted, the court made it clear that the appellant's counsel shall fully cooperate with the Trial Court for early disposal of the case. A statement of the appellant's counsel before the Trial Court was recorded to the effect that no dilatory tactics will be employed.

The court further clarified that if the appellant does not cooperate in early disposal of the case, it shall be open for the State to apply for cancellation of bail. 

Background

To put briefly, the appellant was taken into custody in 2014. At first, he filed a bail application before the Special Court, but the same was rejected in 2018. Thereafter, he approached the Bombay High Court with a bail plea, but the same was also disposed of with two directions - (i) that the trial Judge complete trial within 6 months, and (ii) that the trial Judge give periodical report to the High Court Registry every 3 weeks until conclusion of trial.

Aggrieved by this order, the appellant moved the top Court, which issued notice to respondent-State, noting that the appellant had undergone incarceration of 10 years and as per his counsel's submission, only 16 out of 30 witnesses had been examined. It was also of the prima facie view that instead of deciding the bail application on merits, the High Court exercised "advisory jurisdiction" by giving advice to the prosecutors, defence lawyers and Trial Court.

While deprecating the High Court order for overlooking the long period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, the top Court had reiterated that Courts cannot render "advice" through judicial orders and stayed the direction calling for a periodical report from Trial Court on the progress of trial.

On the last date, the State was directed to apprise the number of adjournments sought by the appellant as well as the Public Prosecutor, besides the number of witnesses the State still proposed to examine.

Appearance: AoR Rishi Malhotra

Case Title: Yogesh Narayan Raut v. State of Maharashtra, SLP(Crl) No. 3494/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order