Supreme Court: Under which circumstances the court can release accused on bail even after commencement of trial?

 It's been almost nine years that the petitioner is in judicial

custody as an under-trial prisoner. {Para 7}

8. What is most disappointing is what has been observed by the

High Court in Para 8.

9. Para 8 reads thus:

“The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024 INSC 909 has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.”

10. It appears that the High Court has not been able to understand

the true purport and ratio of the decision of this Court, referred

to, in para 8. All that the High Court ought to have considered is

the fact that the petitioner is languishing in jail as an undertrial

prisoner past nine years. What more was required for the High

Court to consider the plea of the petitioner for bail, keeping his

right of speedy trial in mind as enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7416/2026

VAIBHAV SINGH  Vs  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 

(IA No. 125028/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 29-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

Print Page

Basic concept of Speedy trial in indian Constitution

 The concept of speedy trial  ensures that accused persons are tried for alleged offenses within a reasonable time without undue delay. 

Constitutional Foundation

The right to speedy trial is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution but has been recognized as an essential component of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has established that this constitutional provision encompasses the right to a speedy trial, making it a fundamental right protected under the Constitution.

Print Page

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT" IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS" FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES

 1) Leading Supreme court judgment laying down procedure for expeditious trial of Criminal cases.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO MOTO WRIT (CRL) NO.(S) 1/2017

IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS 

Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 

Coram: S.A. BOBDE J, L. NAGESWARA RAO J, S. RAVINDRA BHAT J

Dated: April 20, 2021.

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/04/supreme-court-directs-high-courts-to.html

2) What are Supreme court Guidelines if investigating officer does not file documents favourable to accused at the time of filing of chargesheet? 

Print Page

Supreme Court: High court should not release accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim

  Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i)

either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just

before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before

the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the

oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some

discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby

testing the credibility of the victim. {Para 15}

16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct

practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial

commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final

conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the

accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High

Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and

orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the

deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the

pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence

of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly

delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused,

the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on

the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial

has been infringed.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 13378 OF 2024

X  Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 

Dated: 27th November, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 909.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Bail Should Not Be Granted Ordinarily In Serious Offences Like Rape & Murder Once Trial Starts

 Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity,

etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts

examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the

High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail

application of the accused. {Para 14} 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 13378 OF 2024

X  Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 

Dated: 27th November, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 909.

Print Page

Whether the court should grant bail to accused prosecuted for rape if his right to speedy trial is violated?

The present

application is filed by the present applicant on the

ground of delay in trial. Learned counsel for the

applicant pointed out that initially the bail application

No. 1257 of 2022 was filed by the present applicant

which was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, if the

trial is not commence within six months. Now, already

one year has been passed and there is no progress in the

trial. Certified copy of the roznama placed on record

shows that on several occasions the accused was not

produced before the Court by the jail authority and

therefore the charge was not framed. From the

roznama, it appears that Special Court has not taken the

efforts to secure the presence of the accused before the

Court to proceed with the trial. The Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State

of Maharashtra and another (supra), if the State or any

prosecuting agency including the court concerned has

no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental

right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined

under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or

any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the

plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is

serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies

irrespective of the nature of the crime. In Sheikh Javed

Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh (supra), wherein also the issue regarding

the speedy trial was considered by the Court and it is

held by the Apex Court that this Court thereafter

proceeded to hold that Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act

does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to

grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the

Constitution. Long incarceration with the unlikelihood

of the trial being completed in the near future is a good

ground to grant bail.

7. Here in the present case also the applicant is

behind the bar since 15th December, 2021. From the

certified copy of the rojnama it reveals the trial was

commenced merely because the accused was not

produced before the Court and the charge was not

framed. The Special Court has not taken any efforts to

secure the presence of the accused before the Court as

well as the prosecution has not taken any efforts to

secure the presence of the accused before the Court.

Thus, in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, if the State or any prosecuting agency

including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to

provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused

to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of

the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting

agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the

ground that the crime committed is serious.

Admittedly, the crime committed is serious but in view

of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and

in view of the Article 21 of the Constitution, the

applicant cannot be kept behind the bar for indefinite

period. In that view of that, the application deserves to

be allowed. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Criminal Application (BA) No. 429 of 2024

Dattatray Shrikrushna Shejole Vs The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

DATED : 6th AUGUST, 2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court directions for speedy disposal of cases for offences under Pocso Act

 Be that as it may, regard being had to the spirit of the Act, we think it appropriate to issue the following directions:

(i) The High Courts shall ensure that the cases registered under the POCSO Act are tried and disposed of by the Special Courts and the presiding officers of the said courts are sensitized in the matters of child protection and psychological response.

(ii) The Special Courts, as conceived, be established, if not already done, and be assigned the responsibility to deal with the cases under the POCSO Act.

(iii) The instructions should be issued to the Special Courts to fast track the cases by not granting unnecessary adjournments and following the procedure laid down in the POCSO Act and thus complete the trial in a time-bound manner or within a specific time frame under the Act.

(iv) The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to constitute a Committee of three Judges to regulate and monitor the progress of the trials under the POCSO Act. The High Courts where three Judges are not available the Chief Justices of the said courts shall constitute one Judge Committee.

(v) The Director General of Police or the officer of equivalent rank of the States shall constitute a Special Task Force which shall ensure that the investigation is properly conducted and witnesses are produced on the dates fixed before the trial courts.

(vi) Adequate steps shall be taken by the High Courts to provide child friendly atmosphere in the Special Courts keeping in view the provisions of the POCSO Act so that the spirit of the Act is observed.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 76 of 2018.

Decided On: 01.05.2018

Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Author: Dipak Misra, C.J.I.

Citation: (2018) 17 SCC 291,2018 SCCONLINE SC 478, MANU/SC/0489/2018.

Print Page

Should the court release the accused on bail if he has been in jail for a long time and there be no possibility of an early conclusion of a trial?

The Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The

Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal

Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) 3610 of

2020) has observed as under :

"On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that

pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an

indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the

period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead

defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does

not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail

to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of

the trial court."

19. In the aforesaid cases the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that

if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and

the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial long period then

a period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground.

 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6869

of 2019

Applicant :- Anokhi Lal Second Bail

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Order Date :- 30.3.2022

Print Page

Leading Supreme court judgment laying down procedure for expeditious trial of Criminal cases

 The court is of the opinion that the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, (which are annexed to the present order, and shall be read as part of it) should be hereby finalized in terms of the above discussion. The following directions are hereby issued:

(a) All High Courts shall take expeditious steps to incorporate the said Draft Rules, 2021 as part of the rules governing criminal trials, and ensure that the existing rules, notifications, orders and practice directions are suitably modified, and promulgated (wherever necessary through the Official Gazette) within 6 months from today. If the state government’s co-operation is necessary in this regard, the approval of the concerned department or departments, and the formal notification of the said Draft Rules, shall be made within the said period of six months.

(b) The state governments, as well as the Union of India (in relation to investigating agencies in its control) shall carry out consequential amendments to their police and other manuals, within six months from today. This direction applies, specifically in respect of Draft Rules 1-3. The appropriate forms and guidelines shall be brought into force, and all agencies instructed accordingly, within six months from today. {Para 19}

Supreme Court directs High Courts To Adopt Draft Rules Of Criminal Practice Within 6 Months

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO MOTO WRIT (CRL) NO.(S) 1/2017

IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS 

Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 

Coram: S.A. BOBDE J, L. NAGESWARA RAO J, S. RAVINDRA BHAT J

Dated: April 20, 2021.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Precaution to be taken by court while trying cases Expeditiously( Speedy trial Vs fair trial)

While the anxiety to bring the trial to its earliest conclusion has to be shared it is fundamental that in the process none of the well-entrenched principles of law that have been laboriously built by illuminating judicial precedents are sacrificed or compromised. In no circumstance, can the cause of justice be made to suffer, though, undoubtedly, it is highly desirable that the finality of any trial is achieved in the quickest possible time.

18. Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly required in criminal matters and that would naturally be part of guarantee of fair trial. However, the attempts to expedite the process should not be at the expense of the basic elements of fairness and the opportunity to the Accused, on which postulates, the entire criminal administration of justice is founded. In the pursuit for expeditious disposal, the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed. What is paramount is the cause of justice and keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a core idea and ideal, the process may be expedited, but fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying the cause of justice.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 62-63 of 2014

Decided On: 18.12.2019

 Anokhilal  Vs.  State of Madhya Pradesh

Print Page

Supreme Court Guidelines for speedy trial of Criminal cases

 The following practice guidelines should be followed by trial courts in the conduct of a criminal trial, as far as possible:

i. a detailed case-calendar must be prepared at the commencement of the trial after framing of charges;

ii. the case-calendar must specify the dates on which the examination-in-chief and cross-examination (if required) of witnesses is to be conducted;

iii. the case-calendar must keep in view the proposed order of production of witnesses by parties, expected time required for examination of witnesses, availability of witnesses at the relevant time, and convenience of both the prosecution as well as the defence, as far as possible;

14 “309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.–(1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded…”

See also Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220; and, Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Administration), (1984) 1 SCC 722.

14

iv. testimony of witnesses deposing on the same subject-matter must be proximately scheduled;

v. the request for deferral under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. must be preferably made before the preparation of the case-calendar;

vi. the grant for request of deferral must be premised on sufficient reasons justifying the deferral of cross-examination of each witness, or set of witnesses;

vii. while granting a request for deferral of cross-examination of any witness, the trial courts must specify a proximate date for the cross-examination of that witness, after the examination-in-chief of such witness(es) as has been prayed for;

viii. the case-calendar, prepared in accordance with the above guidelines, must be followed strictly, unless departure from the same becomes absolutely necessary;

ix. in cases where trial courts have granted a request for deferral, necessary steps must be taken to safeguard witnesses from being subjected to undue influence, harassment or intimidation.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1321 OF 2018

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4652 of 2018]

State of Kerala  V   Rasheed 

Dated: October 30, 2018.

Author: INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Citation: AIR 2019 SC 721

Print Page

Whether it can be presumed that prejudice was caused to accused if there is Inordinate Delay in completion of Investigation?

 It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions of this Court
articulating the mandate of the Constitution that there is
implicit right under Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn
encompasses speedy investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision
and retrial. To determine whether undue delay has occurred,
one must have regard to nature of offence, number of accused
and witnesses, workload of the court and the investigating
agency, systemic delays. Inordinate delay may be taken as
presumptive proof of prejudice particularly when accused is in
custody so that prosecution does not become persecution.
Court has to balance and weigh several relevant factors.
Though it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribe any
mandatory outer time limit and the court may only examine
effect of delay in every individual case on the anvil of Article 21
of the Constitution, there is certainly a need for in-house
mechanism to ensure that there is no undue delay in
completing investigation.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
M.A. NO.267 OF 2017 IN SLP (CRL.) NO.657 OF 2017

DILAWAR Vs The State of Haryana & Anr

Dated:May 01, 2018.

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to decide rent law cases speedily?

 Before parting, we consider it apposite to observe that the object of the Rent Laws all over the State is to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases between the landlord and tenant and especially those cases where the landlord seek eviction for his bona fide need.

48) We sincerely feel that the eviction matters should be given priority in their disposal at all stages of litigation and especially where the eviction  is claimed on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. We hope and trust that due attention would be paid by all courts to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases.

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Hameed Kunju vs Nazim on 17 July, 2017

 CIVIL APPEAL No. 9151 OF 2017

 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.23533/2016)

Citation:(2017)8 SCC 611
                    

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings?

For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that in Common Cause case (I) (as modified in Common Cause (II) ) and Raj Deo Sharma (I) and (II), the Court could not have prescribed periods of limitation beyond which the trial of a criminal case or a criminal proceeding cannot continue and must mandatorily be closed followed by an order acquitting or discharging the accused. In conclusion we hold:-

(1) The dictum in A.R. Antulay's case is correct and still holds the field.

(2) The propositions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in A.R. Antulay's case, adequately take care of right to speedy trial. We uphold and re-affirm the said propositions.

(3) The guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulay's case are not exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not intended to operate as hard and fast rules or to be applied like a strait-jacket formula. Their applicability would depend on the fact-situation of each case. It is difficult to foresee all situations and no generalization can be made.

(4) It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. The time-limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the several directions made in Common Cause (I), Raj Deo Sharma (I) and Raj Deo Sharma (II) could not have been so prescribed or drawn and are not good law. The criminal courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time, as prescribed by the directions made in Common Cause Case (I), Raj Deo Sharma case (I) and (II). At the most the periods of time prescribed in those decisions can be taken by the courts seized of the trial or proceedings to act as reminders when they may be persuaded to apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before them and determine by taking into consideration the several relevant factors as pointed out in A.R. Antulay's case and decide whether the trial or proceedings have become so inordinately delayed as to be called oppressive and unwarranted. Such time-limits cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any Court as a bar to further continuance of the trial or proceedings and as mandatorily obliging the court to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused.

(5) The Criminal Courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under Sections 309, 311and 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial judge can prove to be better protector of such right than any guidelines. In appropriate cases jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions.

Supreme Court of India

P. Ramachandra Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2002

Bench: Cji, R.C. Lahoti, N. Santosh Hegde, Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat

           CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 535  of  2000

Print Page

Whether magistrate can close prosecution evidence if prosecution has failed to produce witnesses?

The Code of Criminal Procedure is comprehensive enough to enable the Magistrate to close the prosecution if the prosecution is unable to produce its witnesses inspite of repeated opportunities.Section 309(1) Cr. P.C. supports the above view as it enjoins expeditious holding of the proceedings and continuous examination of witnesses from day today. The section also provides for recording reasons for adjourning the case beyond the following day.

16.After deep consideration of the matter, we proceed to supplement the propositions laid down by the Constitution bench in Antulay's case (supra) with the following directions:-

(i) In cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of a period of two years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not, within the said period and the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case.

(ii) In such cases as mentioned above, if the accused has been in jail for a period of not less than one half of the maximum period of punishment prescribed for the offence, the trial court shall release the accused on bail forthwith on such conditions as it deems fit.

(iii) If the offence under trial is punishable with imprisonment for a period exceeding 7 years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of three years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charge framed, whether the prosection has examined all the witnesses or not within the said period and the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case, unless for very exceptional reasons to be recorded and in the interest of justice the court considers it necessary to grant further time to the prosecution to adduce evidence beyond the aforesaid time limit.

(iv) But if the inability for completing the prosecution within the aforesaid period is attributable to the conduct of the accused in protracting the trial, no court is obliged to close the prosecution evidence within the aforesaid period in any of the cases covered by clauses

(i) to (iii).

(v) Where the trial has been stayed by orders of court or by operation of law such time during which the stay was in force shall be excluded from the aforesaid period for closing prosecution evidence. The above directions will be in addition to and without prejudice to the directions issued by this Court in "Common Cause" Vs. Union of India (1996)(4) SCC 33) as modified by the same bench through the order reported in "Common Cause" a registered Society Vs. Union of India (1996) (6) SCC 775).

Supreme Court of India

Raj Deo Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 8 October, 1998

Bench: Cji, K.T.Thomas and M Srinivasa JJ.

Citation: 1998 SAR (CRIMINAL) 764
This judgment is clarified by hon'ble supreme court in later judgment.Please see this post 

Whether it is permissible to prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings?

http://www.lawweb.in/2017/10/whether-it-is-permissible-to-prescribe.html

Print Page

Supreme Court: Right to adjournment Vs Right to speedy justice

 In the said case, it has also been held that it is desirable that the

recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments

and decision thereon within a reasonable time. That apart, it has also

been held that the Courts should constantly endeavour to follow such

a time schedule so that the purpose of amendments brought in the

Code of Civil Procedure are not defeated. Painfully, the Court

observed:-

“… In fact, applications for adjournments,

reopening and recalling are interim measures,

could be as far as possible avoided and only in

compelling and acceptable reasons, those

applications are to be considered. We are satisfied

that the plaintiff has filed those two applications

before the trial Court in order to overcome the

lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and evidence. It is

not the case of the plaintiff that it was not given

adequate opportunity. In fact, the materials placed

show that the plaintiff has filed both the

applications after more than sufficient opportunity

had been granted to it to prove its case. During the
entire trial, those documents have remained in

exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still plaintiff

has not placed those bills on record. It further

shows that final arguments were heard on number

of times and judgment was reserved and only

thereafter, in order to improve its case, the plaintiff

came forward with such an application to avoid the

final judgment against it. Such course is not

permissible even with the aid of Section 151 CPC.”

10. In the case at hand, as we have stated hereinbefore, the examination-in-chief

continued for long and the matter was adjourned seven

times. The defendant sought adjournment after adjournment for

cross-examination on some pretext or the other which are really not

entertainable in law. But the trial Court eventually granted permission

subject to payment of costs. Regardless of the allowance extended,

the defendant stood embedded on his adamantine platform

and prayed for adjournment as if it was his right to seek adjournment

on any ground whatsoever and on any circumstance. The non-concern

of the defendant-petitioner shown towards the proceedings of the

Court is absolutely manifest. The disregard shown to the plaintiff's

age is also visible from the marathon of interlocutory applications

filed. A counsel appearing for a litigant has to have institutional responsibility.

The Code of Civil Procedure so command. Applications

are not to be filed on the grounds which we have referred to hereinabove

and that too in such a brazen and obtrusive manner. It is

wholly reprehensible. The law does not countenance it and, if we permit

ourselves to say so, the professional ethics decries such practice.

It is because such acts are against the majesty of law.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2016

(CC NO.14061 OF 2016)

GAYATHRI V M. GIRISH 

Dated:July 27, 2016.

Dipak Misra, J.

Citation:2016 SCC online SC744,(2016) 14 SCC142

Print Page

Supreme Court: Distinction between speedy trial and fair trial

 A “speedy trial”, albeit the essence of the fundamental
right to life entrenched in the Article 21 of the Constitution of
India has a companion in concept in “fair trial”, both being in
alienable constituents of an adjudicative process, to culminate
in a judicial decision by a court of law as the final arbiter.
There is indeed a qualitative difference between right to speedy
trial and fair trial so much so that denial of the former by
itself would not be prejudicial to the accused, when pitted
against the imperative of fair trial. As fundamentally, justice
not only has to be done but also must appear to have been
done, the residuary jurisdiction of a court to direct further
investigation or reinvestigation by any impartial agency, probe
by the state police notwithstanding, has to be essentially
invoked if the statutory agency already in-charge of the
investigation appears to have been ineffective or is presumed
or inferred to be not being able to discharge its functions
fairly, meaningfully and fructuously. 
REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2016

POOJA PAL V UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 

Dated:JANUARY 22, 2016.

AMITAVA ROY,J.

Citation:2016 CRLJ 2038

Print Page

Supreme Court: Factors to be considered by court while closing side of prosecution for evidence

 ‘Speedy trial’ and ‘fair trial’ to a person accused of a crime are integral part of Article 21.There is, however, qualitative difference between the right to speedy trial and the accused’s right of fair trial. Unlike the accused’s right of fair trial, deprivation of the right to speedy trial does not per se prejudice the accused in defending himself. The right to speedy trial is in its very nature relative. It depends upon diverse circumstances. Each case of delay in conclusion of a criminal trial has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of such case. Mere lapse of several years since the commencement of prosecution by itself may not justify the discontinuance of prosecution or dismissal of indictment. The factors concerning the accused’s right to speedy trial have to be weighed vis-a-vis the impact of the crime on society and the confidence of the people in judicial system. Speedy trial secures rights to an accused but it does not preclude the rights of public justice. The nature and gravity of crime, persons involved, social impact and societal needs must be weighed along with the right of the accused to speedy trial and if the balance tilts in favour of the former the long delay in conclusion of criminal trial should not operate against the continuation of prosecution and if the right of accused in the facts and circumstances of the case and exigencies of situation tilts the balance in his favour, the prosecution may be brought to an end. These principles must apply as well when the appeal court is confronted with the question whether or not retrial of an accused should be ordered.

Supreme Court of India

Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi on 31 August, 2012

Bench: R.M. Lodha, Anil R. Dave, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya

REPORTABLE

Citation;AIR2012SC3860,2012CriLJ4537,192(2012)DLT393, 2012GLH(3)194, 

Print Page

Whether right to speedy trial is applicable to departmental inquiry?

The legal expectation of expedition and diligence being present at
every stage of a criminal trial and a fortiori in departmental inquiries has
been emphasised by this Court on numerous occasions. The Constitution
Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225,
underscored that this right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the
Constitution and is also reflected in Section 309 of the Cr.P.C., 1973; that it
encompasses all stages, viz., investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and
re-trial; that the burden lies on the prosecution to justify and explain the
delay; that the Court must engage in a balancing test to determine whether
this right had been denied in the particular case before it. Keeping these
factors in mind the CAT had in the case in hand directed that the Appellant’s
suspension would not be extended beyond 90 days from 19.3.2013. The
High Court had set aside this direction, viewing it as a substitution of a
judicial determination to the authority possessing that power, i.e., the
Government. This conclusion of the High Court cannot be sustained in
view of the following pronouncement of the Constitution Bench in Antulay:

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1912 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP © No. 31761 of 2013
AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY .….. APPELLANT
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS. .…..RESPONDENTS
SECRETARY & ANR.
Citation;(2015)7 SCC291
VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.

Print Page

Whether right of accused to get speedy trial can be denied on the ground that he did not ask it ?

We cannot recognize or give effect to, what is called the
‘demand’ rule. An accused cannot try himself; he is tried by the

court at the behest of the prosecution. Hence, an accused’s plea
of denial of speedy trial cannot be defeated by saying that the
accused did at no time demand a speedy trial. If in a given case,
he did make such a demand and yet he was not tried speedily, it
would be a plus point in his favour, but the mere non-asking for
a speedy trial cannot be put against the accused. Even in USA,
the relevance of demand rule has been substantially watered
down in Barker 33 L Ed 2d 101and other succeeding cases.


REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1912 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP © No. 31761 of 2013
AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY

Vs.
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS.
SECRETARY & ANR.
Dated;February 16, 2015.

Print Page