Courts need to ‘interfere’ to secure liberty of undertrials: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, October 8

Making it clear that the judges are not expected to be a mute spectator in cases of inordinate delay in the conclusion of trials, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the courts should “unhesitatingly interfere” to secure the personal liberty of the undertrials in such matters.

The assertion came as the high court granted bail to a drugs case accused after noticing that the trial had practically come to a halt without any fault on his part. Appearing before Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul’s Bench, the counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted this was the third petition for grant of a regular bail in an FIR registered on October 23, 2020, under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act at the Chheharta police station in Amritsar.

He added the trial had come to a virtual standstill as none of the official-prosecution witnesses had put in an appearance before the court to get their evidence recorded. Inviting the court’s attention to the interim orders recorded by the trial court, he added the case had to be adjourned on as many as 10 dates following the non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses. Non- bailable warrants had also been issued to procure their presence. The counsel submitted that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose.

Justice Kaul asserted this was yet another case where the trial had come to a virtual standstill on account of the lackadaisical approach of the official respondents. The trial had been delayed as their evidence had not been recorded. The petitioner could not be left to languish for an indefinite period during the pendency of a trial for reasons not attributable to him.

“It needs to be reiterated that the right to life and personal liberty granted by the Constitution of India also covers the right to speedy trial. Therefore, when an undertrial has been in custody for a significant period of time like the case in hand and the trial is being held up for no fault on his part, the courts cannot be expected to be a mute spectator and should rather unhesitatingly interfere for securing the personal liberty of an undertrial,” Justice Kaul asserted.

Before parting with the case, Justice Kaul asserted the petition was being allowed in the facts and circumstances of the matter. The petitioner, in custody since October 23, 2020, was admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate.