DILAWAR versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 655 · Decided: 01-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, INDU MALHOTRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
655
DILAWAR
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
(M.A. No. 267 of 2017 in SLP (Crl.) No. 657 of 2017)
MAY 01, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Investigation: Speedy investigation – By impugned order, CBI
was directed to conduct trial within six months – The case against
the petitioner-accused was that he was leader of a mob which
indulged in arson, loot and mischief of burning of house of cabinet
minister – His bail applications were rejected by Sessions Court
and  High Court – While rejecting bail application, Supreme Court
directed that trial be conducted as far as possible within six months
– In the instant application seeking modification of the said order,
it was stated that CBI was conducting investigation and took over
only on January 6, 2016 and one and a half years have gone by
and, there was voluminous task which was time consuming and trial
could not commence unless report under s.173 Cr.P.C is filed by
CBI which would take long time – Disposing of the application, the
Court, Held: There is no indication as to what proceedings have
been taken up by the CBI so far, and why more time will be required
and how much more time will be required – No investigating agency
can take unduly long time in completing investigation – Speedy
investigation is recognized as a part of fundamental right of fair
procedure under Art.21 of the Constitution – Since accused has
been in custody for more than two years and investigation is pending
with the CBI for more than one and a half years, CBI must complete
investigation at the most within next two months so that trial can
commence latest by July 10, 2018 and concluded by the end of the
year – Since order declining bail was passed on 30th January, 2017
and more than one year has gone by, it will be open to the petitioner,
if he is still in custody, to move a bail application
before the trial court in accordance with law – Constitution of India
– Art.21.
   [2018] 5 S.C.R. 655
655
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
Investigation: In number of case, investigations remain
pending for unduly long time which is not conducive to
administration of criminal justice – There is need for timelines for
completing investigation and for having in-house oversight
mechanism wherein accountability for adhering to laid down
timelines can be fixed at a different levels in the hierarchy .
Constitution of India – Art.21 – Speedy trial – There is implicit
right under Art.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 Art. 21 of the
Constitution, there is certainly a need for in-house mechanism to
ensure that there is no undue delay in completing investigation –
Delay/laches – Investigation.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 :
[1978] 2 SCR 621 ; Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home
Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 : [1979] 3
SCR 169 ; Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak  (1992)
1 SCC 225 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 325 ; P. Ramachandra
Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578
– relied on.
Investigation: Undue delay – Need for a mechanism to  take
remedial steps if there is undue delay  in investigation – s.57 Cr.P.C.
puts a bar on detention by a police officer beyond  24 hours excepting
time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the
Magistrate’s court – s.167(1) Cr.P.C. provides that where
investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours, the accused
has to be produced before the Magistrate and further detention of
the accused has to be authorized by the Magistrate – It is well
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
established that authorization for such detention has to be given
having regard to the progress in investigation – Even a Magistrate
cannot authorise detention in police custody beyond 15 days – After
judicial custody for more than 90 days in serious cases stipulated
therein and 60 days in other cases, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.