Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJAY DHAR, J.
Manzoor Ahmad Mir – Petitioner
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
Bail App. No. 109 of 2022
Decided On : 30-12-2022
Bail - Murder and Right to Speedy Trial - Section 302, 380, 457 RPC; Article 21 of the Constitution; Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration without trial constitutes a violation of this right. The court highlighted the importance of timely justice and referenced several Supreme Court judgments that established the principle that long delays in trial can warrant bail, even in serious offenses like murder. The court concluded that the prosecution's failure to expedite the trial justified granting bail to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in FIR No. 118/2010 for offenses under sections 302, 380, and 457 RPC, following the alleged murder of his wife, Rukhsana Jabeen. The petitioner claimed his right to a speedy trial was violated due to his prolonged incarceration of over 12 years without trial completion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in the trial was primarily attributable to the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses, which hindered the trial's progress. The court recognized the petitioner's right to a speedy trial and noted that the prosecution's inaction justified the grant of bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, accused of a heinous crime, is entitled to bail due to prolonged incarceration and the violation of his right to a speedy trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the right to a speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. It emphasized that long delays in trial, especially when attributable to the prosecution, can lead to the grant of bail, even in serious offenses like murder.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions, due to the excessive delay in the trial process and the prosecution's failure to expedite proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY DHAR, J.
1. The petitioner has sought bail in FIR No. 118/2010 for offences under section 302, 380 and 457 RPC registered with Police Station, Batamaloo, Srinagar.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, deceased Rukhsana Jabeen was married to the petitioner in the year 2006. The deceased was working as a Nurse in the Health Department of the J&K Government whereas the petitioner was working as Constable in the Police Department. After the marriage, the petitioner is alleged to have harassed his wife and taken away her gold ornaments. On 25.08.2010 when the deceased was proceeding to her duty during night in an ambulance, the petitioner boarded the said ambulance and forcibly tried to deboard the deceased from the said ambulance. The petitioner is stated to have beaten up his wife besides extending threats to her. On 29.09.2010, the deceased was found dead in her room. The police was, accordingly, informed and after lodging of the FIR, investigation was set into motion. During the investigation of the case, it was found that, the deceased, had been done to death by the petitioner. The challan against the petitioner was filed and he is facing trial for offences under section 302, 380 and 457 RPC.
3. The petitioner has sought bail only on the ground of his long incarceration and on account of violation of his right to speedy trial. According to the petitioner, he is in custody for the last more than 12 years but the trial against him has not concluded as yet. It has been contended that there is no likelihood of completion of trial in near future, as such, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the trial court record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated during his arguments that the speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and once this right is violated, the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Indrani Pratim Mukerjea vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1627/2022 decided on 18.05.2022) and Saudan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 308/2022 decided on 25th February, 2022).
6. Per contra, Mr. Sajjad Ashraf, learned Government Advocate, has submitted that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence by murdering his wife and there is enough evidence on record to prima facie show his involvement in the alleged crime, as such, rigour of Proviso (1) to Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code is attracted to the instant case having regard to the fact that the offences committed by the petitioner carry maximum punishment of deaths sentence. It is also averred that on an earlier occasion when the petitioner was granted temporary bail in the year 2014, he had threatened the prosecution witnesses.
7. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has been arrested in the instant case on 15.12.2010 and the challan against him was laid before the trial court on 12.01.2011. The record further shows that 44 witness have been cited in the challan and till date evidence of the prosecution has not been completed.
8. In the light of aforesaid facts, the question arises as to whether a person who has been accused of having committed a heinous offence like murder, is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of his long incarceration of more than 12 years. This question has been a matter of discussion before the Supreme Court in a number of cases. It would be apt to refer to some of the judgments of the Supreme Court on this issue.
9. One of the earliest judgments on the concept of speedy trial was delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81. In the said case, the Supreme Court deprecated the delay in commencement of trials, which would apply equally to
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged incarceration without trial can justify the grant of bail, even for serious offenses.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to a speedy trial, necessitating bail when delays are not caused by the accused.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to speedy justice under Article 21, necessitating bail despite the gravity of the charges.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged incarceration without trial violates this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is unjust.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is fundamental, and prolonged pre-conviction detention without trial is a violation of personal liberty and justice principles.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
