J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 3^rd May, 2017 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in CRA No.1823 of 2009 whereby prayer for bail, pending disposal of criminal appeal against life sentence has been declined though the appellant has been in custody for more than ten years.

2. The appellant stands convicted under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, apart from other Signature Not Verifiedsentences. According to the prosecution, on 23^rd June, 2005 at Digitally signed by SWETA DHYANI Date: 2018.03.28 Reason: 11.30 A.M., the appellant along with the co-accused caused the murder of one Shahid. In view of evidence in support of the charge, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant. The appellant applied for bail pending consideration of appeal before the High Court. After the said prayer was rejected, another application was filed. The High Court rejected the second bail application with the observation that the evidence on record did not warrant grant of bail.

3. In this appeal, the order of the High Court is challenged mainly on the ground that the appellant had been in custody for more than ten years and the remedy of appeal will be meaningless if he has to remain in custody for the full term of sentence. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Kashmira Singh versus State of Punjab 1, (1977) 4 SCC 291 THE ISSUE

4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, following order was passed :

“The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been in custody for more than ten years. He has neither been granted bail nor his appeal is heard. It is stated that there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard before the High Court in the near future.

While we are not inclined to grant bail, we issue notice confined to the question as to how the situation can be remedied ensuring that the appeal is heard within a reasonable time at the appellate forum.

Issue notice. Notice be also issued to the Convenor, National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms i.e. the Secretary Justice – Union of India and also the Attorney General of India.

Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel who is present in the Court is requested to assist the Court as amicus.”

5. Accordingly, we have heard learned Attorney General and the learned amicus on the question as to how the problem of delay in hearing of the appeals can be remedied.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AMICUS

6. Learned Amicus submitted that timely justice is essential for the Rule of Law. Access to justice is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. It is also recognized under Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as Articles 9 and 14 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. There is, thus, dire need to find practical, effective and achievable system for speedy disposal of appeals. In its 245^th Report in the year 2014, the Law Commission of India made analysis for method of computing adequate judge-strength and recommended increase of number of judges on that basis. In Vineet Narayan versus Union of India 2, (1996) 2 SCC 199 this Court held that the Government agencies must perform their legal obligations as per mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. In Prakash Singh versus Union of India 3, (2006) 8 SCC 1 this Court directed police reforms to be brought about for scientific, speedy and quality investigation. The United States Speedy Trial Act, 1974 provides timelines for steps in justice delivery. Timeline provided in different statutes in India, such as filing of charge sheets under Section 167 Cr.P.C. is required to be implemented. Project of National Arrears Grid was required to be implemented. The Woolf Report of 1996 emphasized generation of accurate judicial statistics on a daily basis. The Grid should help identify the steps for dispensation of justice concerning the poor and the underprivi