The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, emphasizing the need for courts to avoid undue delays and not show leniency towards accused in serious crimes.

JUDGMENT :

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to issue directions to the respondent to issue directions to the trial Court to expedite the trial of the case and to conclude the trial of the case bearing No. CHI 387/21, REMP 410/21 titled as “State Vs. Surajit Gayen” arising out of the FIR No. 19 dated 31.03.2021 under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC & under Sections 66 -C and 66-D of the IT Act, 2000 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Phase IV, S.A.S. Nagar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a decorated Army Officer aged about 76 years, who had served the country throughout his life. However, unfortunately, at this juncture, he was cheated to the tune of Rs.58.68 lakhs by the accused on the pretext of getting him an insurance policy. Even, the accused are running a gang to play fraud with the innocent persons by using highly advanced techniques and now adopting all delaying tactics before the trial Court to delay the trial.

3. Learned counsel further contends that in the present case, the challan was presented before the trial Court on 30.09.2021. Thereafter, the accused are trying to delay the trial in a well planned manner by not appearing before the trial Court. On one date, an accused remains absent whereas on the other date, another accused prays for exemption from personal appearance and are taking unreasonable adjournments on various dates on one pretext or the other. Learned counsel has referred to the zimini orders (Annexures P-1 to P-6), which have been appended with the petition to contend that the trial Court has adopted a very lenient attitude towards the accused and the exemption has been granted to the accused from personal appearance, liberally. Since, 30.09.2021, the case was listed for about 61 dates of hearing, still, only the examination of two witnesses has been completed. Learned counsel further contends that from the record, it was apparent that Khursid Ahmed, was granted the exemption from personal appearance on 30 dates whereas Surajit Gayen, another accused was granted exemption from personal appearance on 10 dates of hearing. Even, Sudipa and Hidayet Ullah, other accused also remained absent on various occasions, but only bailable warrants were issued against them to procure their presence. Learned counsel further contends that even the petitioner/complainant, who is resident of Amritsar came to the trial Court on 10 dates of hearing to record his statement. It was wrongly recorded that the case was adjourned on the asking of the petitioner. The petitioner is a senior citizen and the trial should have been decided on priority basis, even as per the various judgments passed by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record carefully.

5. In view of the fact that only limited prayer has been made to issue directions to the trial Court to decide the trial in a time bound manner and any order passed by this Court is not likely to prejudice the accused in any manner, this Court deems it appropriate not to issue notice to the accused, at this stage, which would also save their time, energy and expenses. Even otherwise, this Court always emphasized that the trials where the complainant or the accused are senior citizens has to be disposed off in priority and in a time bound manner.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the scope of speedy trial and emphasizing that the speedy trial is one of the most important facets of the fundamental rights to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21