The delay in the disposal of criminal appeals is a matter of serious concern and that it is appropriate to liberalize the grant of bail at the pre-conviction stage.

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.

1. Vide order dated September 8, 1999, we had granted bail to the accused-appellant. We now give detailed reasons for doing so and also make an attempt to frame certain guidelines for the grant of bail where appeals against conviction filed in the High Court by those who stand convicted for life and which cannot be heard with reasonable expedition should be deal with. While issuing notice on the bail application, we had invited all Counsels, who wished to assist us, to address us on the question posed.

2. Mr. R.S. Ghai, Sr. Advocate, the appellants Counsel in this case, Mr. P.S. Mann, Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocates and Mr. R.T.P.S. Tulsi, Advocate, had appeared before us to project the point of view of the prisoners whereas Mr. Ram Avtar and Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana and Deputy Advocate General, Punjab respectively, had put in appearance on behalf of their respective States.

3. The delay in disposal of criminal appeals pending in the High Courts is a matter of serious concern to all those involved in the administration of criminal justice but whereas the Administrators have an undoubted (albeit an impersonal concern) the persons widely affected by the delay are the prisoners themselves despairing of the fact that their appeals are not being heard within a reasonable time. The plight of such persons can well be imagined. The appellant in the present case, a young student 24 years of age 6 years ago, was arrested on a charge of murder on 29.7.1993. The allegation against him was that he has caused one injury with a knife on the person of the deceased, which proved to be fatal. He was convicted of the charge by the Sessions Judge, Ambala on 12.4.1996. He filed an appeal in this Court on 31.5.1996 alongwith an application for bail and though the appeal was admitted, bail was declined on 3.12.1996. A second bail application was also dismissed on 7.2.1997. The present application is the third one. This application has been allowed for the reasons that follow and in the background of what has been stated above, after he has been in custody for more than six years.

4. The Honble Supreme Court has often been seized of the problem in the disposal of criminal trials of which an appeal is but a continuation. In all these judgments, an attempt has been made to balance the conflict of interest that arises with the State trying to ensure that a prisoner must be retained in custody till the completion of the trial or his period of sentence, as the case may be, and the effort of the prisoner, on the other hand, to seek a speedy trial or an expeditious hearing of the appeal, failing which, staking his claim to the grant of bail. In Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1360, it was observed that it was appropriate that the grant of bail should be liberalised at the pre-conviction stage but in any eventuality, the grant of bail should be seriously considered in the case of a delayed trial. We reproduce here paragraph 5 of the report:

"5. There is also one other infirmity of the legal and judicial system which is responsible for this gross denial of justice to the undertrial prisoners and that is the notorious delay in disposal of cases. It is sad reflection on the legal and judicial system that the trial of an accused should not even commence for a long number of years. Even a delay of one year in commencement of the trial is bad enough; how much worse could it be when the delay, is as long as 3 or 5 or 7 or even 10 years. 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. It is interesting to note that in the United States, speedy trial is one of the constitutionally guaranteed lights. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."

So also Article 3