LexHUSSAIN AND ANR. versus UNION OF LNDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 626
HUSSAIN AND ANR.
v.
UNION OF lNDIA
(Criminal Appeal No. 509 of2017)
MARCH 09, 2017
{ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Bail - Denial of bail pending trial/appeal where accused/
convict in custody for long period - Two set of cases - In first case,
appellants were in custody on allegation of an offence u/s.21 (c) of
the NDPS Act and in second case, appellant was in custody as
convicted u/s.302, !PC and appeal was pending in High Court -
Plea of appellants that they were entitled to bail as speedy trial is
their fundamental right u!Art. 21 - Held: It is settled in various
decisions of the Supreme Court that if appeal is not heard for 5
years, excluding the delay for which accused himself is responsible,
bail should normally be granted - However, the second case is not
covered by such decisions as appeal pending in High Court not
completed 5 years - Further, it is settled that if there is violation of
right of speedy trial, instead of quashing the proceedings, a higher
court can direct conclusion of proceedings in fixed time - In light
of these principles, direction issued to dispose of the pending trial
in the first case and appeal in the second case within six months -
Constitution of India - Art. 21 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 - s.2J(c) - Penal Code - s.302 - Under trial
Prisoners.
Supreme Court - Directions - Delay in trials - Speedy trial
is a part of reasonable fair and just procedure guaranteed ul Art. 21
- Inspite of earlier directions of Supreme Court, further
consideration has become necessary in the interest of administration
of justice - Held: High Court to issue directions to subordinate
courts that - (a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within
one week - (b) Where accused are in custody, Magisterial trials be
norlnally concluded within six months and·sessions trials within two
years - (c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five
year old by the end of the year - (d) As supplement to s.436A,
Cr.P.C, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess
626
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA
of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such
under trial must be released on personal bond - Constitution of
India -Art. 21 - Code ofCrimina!Procedure. 1973 - s.436A -
Administration of justice.
Supreme Court - Directions to High Court - Timely delivery
of justice - Speeding up disposal of cases - Held: High Courts to
ensure that bail applications are decided as far as possible within
one month and criminal appeals where accused are in custody for
more than five years are concluded at earliest - Further, High Courts
to prepare, issue and monitor appropriate actioi1 plans for the
subordinate courts and monitor steps for speedy investigation and
trial on administrative and judicial side jiwn time to time.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: l. With regard to grant of bail, pending appeal,
reference has been made to decisions of Supreme Court in case
627
A
B
c
of Akftt(lri Bi (Smt.) v. Sf(lfe of M.P. and Surinder Singh alias
D
Shingara Singh v. Sf(lfe of Punjab* which provides that if the appeal
is not heard for 5 years, excluding the delay for which the accused
himself is responsible, bail should normally be granted. The
second case is not covered by the said judgment as the pending
appeal in the High Court is of the year 2013. [Para 6) [632-C-D)
*Akhtari Bi (Smt.) v. State of MP (2001) 4 SCC 355 :
[2001) 2 SCR 626; Surinder Singh alias Shingara
Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387 : [2005)
2 Suppl. SCR 1172 - referred to.
1.2 In another Supreme Court decision iu case of Abdul
Rehm(ln Antufoy and ors. v. R.S. Nayak am/ tmr. ** while holding
that speedy trial at all stages is part of right under Article 21, it
was held that if there is violation of right of speedy trial, instead
of quashing the proceedings, a higher court can direct conclusion
of proceedings in a fixed time. In the light of these principles,
the present appeals can be disposed of by directing that the
pending trial in the first case and the appeal in the second case
may be disposed of within six months. [Para 7) [632-E-F]
**Abdul Rehman Antulay and ors. v. R.S. Nayak and
anr. (1992) 1 SCC 225 : [1991) 3 Suppl. SCR 325 -
relied on.
E
F
G
H
628
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017) 2 S.C.R.
2.1 However, since the issue is arExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.