IMPORTANT POINT
Stay orders operating for more than 5, 10 and 20 years; uncalled for strike/abstaining of work by lawyers and frequent suspension of court work after condolence references are illegal. Must be addressed by all concerned.

JUDGMENT :

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

I

1. Leave granted. Grievance in these appeals is against denial of bail pending trial/appeal where appellants have been in custody for a long period.

2. In the first case, the appellants have been in the custody since 4th August, 2013 on the allegation of having committed offence under Section 21(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act). Their bail application, pending trial, has been dismissed. In the second case, the appellant is in custody since 11th January, 2009. He has been convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. His bail application has been dismissed by the High Court pending appeal. The appellants contend that, having regard to the long period of custody, they are entitled to bail as speedy trial is their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. To consider the question as to the circumstances in which bail can be granted on the ground of delayed proceedings when a person is in custody, notice was also issued to learned Attorney General and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, the learned amicus and the learned Additional Solicitor General.

5. During the hearing reference has been made to the decisions of this Court dealing with the issue and reference has also been made to Section 436A Cr.P.C. which provides for grant of bail when a person has undergone detention upto one half of maximum prescribed imprisonment. It was submitted that the said provision applies only during trial and the first case is not covered by the said provision as the appellant therein has not undergone the requisite detention period to claim bail under the said provision.

6. With regard to grant of bail, pending appeal, reference has been made to decisions of this Court in Akhtari Bi (Smt.) v. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355 and Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 7 SCC 387 which provides that if the appeal is not heard for 5 years, excluding the delay for which the accused himself is responsible, bail should normally be granted. The second case is not covered by the said judgment as the pending appeal in the High Court is of the year 2013.

7. In Abdul Rehman Antulay and ors. v. R.S. Nayak and anr., (1992) 1 SCC 225 – Para 86 while holding that speedy trial at all stages is part of right under Article 21, it was held that if there is violation of right of speedy trial, instead of quashing the proceedings, a higher court can direct conclusion of proceedings in a fixed time. In the light of these principles, the present appeals can be disposed of by directing that the pending trial in the first case and the appeal in the second case may be disposed of within six months. We order accordingly and dispose of the matters to the extent of grievance in the two cases.

II

8. However, since the issue is arising frequently, inspite of earlier directions of this Court, further consideration has become necessary in the interest of administration of justice and for enforcement of fundamental right under Article 21.

9. As already noticed, speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21. This constitutional right cannot be denied even on the plea of non-availability of financial resources. The court is entitled to issue directions to augment and strengthen investigating machinery, setting-up of new courts, building new court houses, providing more staff and equipment to the courts, appointment of additional judges and other measures as are necessary for speedy trial [Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, (1980) 1 SCC 98 – para 10].

10. Directions given by this Court in Hussainara Khatoon (supra) to this effect were left to be implemented by the High Courts [Hussainara Khatoon and ors. (VII) etc. v. Home Secretary, Bihar and ors. etc., (1995) 5 SCC 32