The right to a speedy and fair trial is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the court emphasized the importance of timely dispensation of justice.

ORDER :

The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.1234/2019 of the Ambalamedu Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against him for allegedly committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed the application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Code’). He is in judicial custody since 23.10.2019.

2. The summary of the prosecution case is that, on 21.10.2019 at around 10.40 p.m., the accused, who hails from the State of West Bengal, fatally stabbed Ajay Uravo (deceased), a fellow native at house No.XIV/304 A in Kunnathunadu Grama Panchayat and, thus, committed the offence of murder.

3. Heard; Smt. Fathima Sulfath B., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Suresh C.K., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued that the petitioner is innocent of the accusation levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate that he has committed the crime. The petitioner is a daily labourer and the sole breadwinner of his family. The petitioner hails from a financially backward family. He has been in judicial custody since 23.10.2019, which is now four years and three months. Yet, the trial has not commenced. The reason for the inordinate delay in commencing the trial is unknown to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Conversely, the learned Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the application. He argued that the petitioner has committed the brutal murder of a person from his native place. The petitioner is from the State of West Bengal and has no roots in Kerala. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is likely to flee from justice. He relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another, [(2004) 7 SCC 528] and contended that the mere fact that the accused has undergone a certain period of incarceration or that the trial is not likely to be concluded shortly by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. He, therefore, prayed that the application be dismissed.

6. When the bail application came up for consideration on 10.1.2024, this Court had called for a report from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha, to ascertain the status and estimated time period required to dispose of S.C. No. 350/2020.

7. Pursuant to the above direction, the learned Sessions Judge reported that, even though the case was committed to the said court, the report and properties were not received from the Forensic Science Laboratory (‘FSL”, for brevity). Therefore, the charge has not been framed. As the prosecution has cited 39 witnesses, he would require at least six months’ time to dispose of the case, that too after receipt of the report and properties from the FSL.

8. Based on the above report, this Court directed the Investigating Officer to file an affidavit clarifying why the report and properties from the FSL were not submitted before the court below.

9. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer filed an affidavit stating that the final report was filed on 1.3.2020 before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Chottanikkara, and the ten material objects were forwarded to the FSL, Thiruvananthapuram on 28.10.2019. Although the case was committed to the court below and numbered S.C. No.350/2020, the charge has not been framed for the want of the scientific report on the material objects. The earlier Investigating Officer had sent a reminder to the Director of the FSL on 1.2.2023 to expedite the analysis. He asserted there were no laches on his part.

10. Considering the above report, this Court suo-motu impleaded the Director of the FSL as an additional respondent and directed him to file an affidavit explaining the reason for the inordinate delay in submitting the report on the material objects which were reportedly sent to him on 28.10. 2019, viz., more than four years and two months back.

11. In respons