ORDER :

1. This case was reserved for orders on 23.3.2021, but before order could be delivered, lockdown was clamped down by the District Collector w.e.f. 14.4.2021, consequently, this Court was also remain closed and during the continuance of lockdown followed by closure of this Court, the summer vacation stepped in w.e.f. 10.05.2021, therefore, this order is being pronounced today i.e. 7.6.2021 after reopening of Court after summer vacation.

2. “Right to speedy trial may not be expressly guaranteed constitutional right in India, but it is implicit in right to fair trial which has been held to be part of right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.”

3. The aforesaid statement of law was rendered by O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court in the matter of T.V. Vatheeswarn v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1979 SC 1360 (para 19) qua right to speedy trial. Speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice and there can be no doubt that delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice (please See Hussainara Khatoon and others (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 31.)

4. Complaining infringement of his right to speedy trial and consequent denial of justice, the petitioner herein has filed this writ petition stating interalia that he remained in jail for commission of offence under Sections 420/34 and 120B of the IPC from 14.5.2012 till the date of delivery of judgment i.e. 08.11.2016 i.e. 4 years, 6 months and 7 days, whereas he has been awarded sentence only for three years for offence under Section 420/34 of the IPC and three years for offence under Section 120B of the IPC and sentences have been directed to run concurrently, as such, it is clear case where his constitutional right of speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has admittedly been violated and for which he is entitled for appropriate compensation jointly and severally from the respondents herein on the following factual backdrops:

4.1 The petitioner along with five other coaccused persons were chargesheeted before jurisdictional criminal Court on 14.5.2012 for offences punishable under Sections 420/34 and 120B of the IPC and pursuant to the said offence, he was taken in custody on 14.5.2012. According to him, he made several applications for grant of regular bail up to this Court, but all were rejected, however, this Court also twice directed the trial Court on 22.4.2013 and 24.6.2014 to expedite the trial, but it could not yield any result and trial could not be expedited and concluded and the petitioner remain continued in jail, suffering as undertrial and ultimately, the trial Court by its judgment dated 8.11.2016 convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 420/34 and 120B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.300/under Section 420/34 of the IPC and RI for three years and fine of Rs.200/with default stipulation in case fine amount is not paid and also directed to run the sentences concurrently.

4.2. Since the date of judgment i.e. 8.11.2016, the petitioner has already remained in jail for a period of 4 years, 6 months and 7 days and he was immediately released on 8.11.2016.

5. Now, it is the case of the petitioner in this writ petition that “right to speedy trial” is his fundamental right and on account of non-conclusion of trial within a reasonable time, the petitioner remained in jail for a period more than he has been sentenced now at the conclusion of trial, which is violative of his fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for which, he is entitled for compensation of Rs. 30 lacks for his said illegal detention for about 1 year, 6 months and 8 days jointly and severally from the respondents by granting the instant writ petition.

6. Return has been filed by the State stating interalia that the writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable as the petitioner has been found to have involved