Accused in judicial custody post-conviction must be afforded a speedy trial and timely sentencing to enable the right to appeal and challenge their conviction.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Writ petition for release from judicial custody - Petitioners convicted under Sections 363 and 411 of IPC were taken into custody post-conviction with the hearing for sentencing adjourned unreasonably for ten weeks - The court emphasized the need for judicial efficiency and the rights of the accused to a speedy trial, highlighting a procedural lapse by the Trial Court. (Paras 6, 15, 18)

(B) Judicial Custody - Due process - The court asserted the necessity of allowing the accused to challenge their conviction and seek suspension of sentence post-conviction, which can only occur after a sentencing order is issued. (Paras 14, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were convicted of kidnapping and receiving stolen property; however, they were acquitted of more serious charges due to insufficient evidence. The learned Trial Court delayed sentencing decisions, rendering the petitioners effectively remediless during the interim.

Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court's adjournment of sentencing violated the rights of the petitioners to a speedy trial and failed to consider necessary timelines for procedural compliance.

Issues: The central issue concerned the unreasonable delay in sentencing and the implications this had on the rights of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a convict in judicial custody has the right to a timely sentencing process and to challenge the conviction, and additional delays must be justified and minimal.

Result: The sentencing hearing adjourned to an earlier date.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction for the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments for bail pending sentence. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's obligation for timely sentence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. enquiry before sentencing. (Para 12 , 14)
5. directions to expedite proceedings. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of writ/orders/directions particularly in the nature of mandamus and certiorari with the prayer that petitioners be released from judicial custody, in interest of justice, till the pronouncement of order on sentence in Sessions Case No. 272/2021, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi.

2. The case against the present petitioners relates to one FIR bearing no. 97/2021, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar for offences punishable under Sections 364A/394/397/411/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC").

3. Succinctly, the case of prosecution before the learned Trial Court was that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of one Harsh who had stated that he alongwith his two friends namely Yash and Sameer had gone to a restaurant at around 8:50 PM on 20.03.2021 in the i20 car of complainant. It was alleged that when complainant was purchasing certain food items, five/seven boys came on scooty and a car and started beating Yash and Sameer who were sitting inside the i20 car of complainant and thereafter fled away by taking the said car, carrying Yash and Sameer as well. Search and investigation was carried out, the car was identified, chased and caught, and two accused i.e. petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 were found sitting in the car, and robbed money to the tune of Rs.13,900/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively was recovered from their possession. It was further revealed during investigation that all the accused persons had robbed the car of complainant as well as kidnapped Yash and Sameer and threatened them of dire consequence if Rs. 5 lakhs were not paid to them as booty amount. Petitioner no. 3 was arrested eventually and other co-accused persons could not be traced.

4. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under Sections 365/364A/368/394/392/411/34 of IPC and charges were framed under Sections 364A/394/397/411/34 of IPC by the concerned Court against all the petitioners. The learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2022 acquitted the petitioners of charges under Sections 364A/394/397 of IPC and convicted them for offence punishable under Sections 363/411 of IPC. The operative portion of judgment dated 25.11.2022 reads as under:

"...Offence Made Out

33. Based on testimony of prosecution witnesses, I find that the only facts which were proved are:

a) That accused persons had kidnapped Yash and Sameer on 20.03.2021.

b) That car in question, being owned by complainant was recovered from accused persons.

34. Based on aforesaid finding, offence of kidnapping punishable u/s 363 IPC and dishonestly receiving stolen property punishable w/s 411 IPC are made out.

35. Prosecution failed to prove that accused persons had claimed ransom after kidnapping Yash and Sameer. Prosecution failed to prove that Yash and sameer were robbed with any cash amount by accused persons, by showing screwdriver. Therefore, offences punishable u/s 364A/394/397IPC were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. All accused are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 364A/394/397 IPC.

36. Accused persons are therefore, convicted for offences w/s 363/411 IPC only..."

5. Thereafter, the petitioners were taken into custody and vide separate order dated 25.11.2022, the learned Trial Court adjourned the matter to 04.02.2023 for hearing arguments on sentence.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners states that this is a pecul