Courts can't be mute spectators to delayed trials: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 17

In a significant judgment on the right to life and personal liberty of even the undertrials languishing in the jails, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the courts could not be expected to act as mute spectators in cases where the trial was being delayed for no fault on their part. The assertion came as Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul rapped the jail authorities for laid-back approach following the non-production of the accused before the trial court on several hearings.

Justice Kaul was hearing second bail application filed against Punjab and other respondents by Amandeep Singh through counsel SPS Sidhu in a murder case registered on September 21, 2019, under Sections 302, 452, 324, 323, 148, 149 and 120-B of the IPC at Talwandi Bhai.

Among other things, Sidhu contended that the challan or the final investigation report was presented in December 2019. But charges had not been framed. As such, the likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future was negligible.

Appearing before the Bench, the state counsel conceded delay in the trial’s progress. Referring to the state’s reply, he submitted that the petitioner could not be produced before the trial court on various dates following non-availability of a police escort.

Justice Kaul asserted this was yet another case where the petitioner and a co-accused had not been produced before the trial court on several dates and the trial had come to a virtual standstill. The petitioner, as such, could not be left languishing for an indefinite period during the trial’s pendency for reasons not attributable to him. The right to life and personal liberty granted by the Constitution of India also covered the right to speedy trial.

“When an undertrial has been in custody for a significant period of time and the trial is being held up for no fault on his part, like in the case in hand, 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.

Granting the concession of bail, Justice Kaul asserted a simple injury with an iron rod on the complainant had been attributed to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court deemed it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as he had now been in custody for close to three years, coupled with the fact that he was not involved in any other criminal case.