LexHUSSAINARA KHATOON & ORS. versus HOME SECRETARY, STATE OF BIHAR, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B 1276 HUSSAIN ARA KHA TOON & ORS. '· HOME SECRETARY, STATE OF BIHAR, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA May 4, 1979 [P. N. BHAGWATI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 21- Jllecessity of Speedy trial of under- trial prisoners. Ordinarily when a person is accused of more than one ojfence, the sen~ tences of imprisonment imposed are directed to run concurrently but assuming C the sentences of imprisonment be coru;ccutive, the undertrial prisoners here have suffered incarceration for the 01aximum period for which they could be sent to jail on conviction for multiple offences. There is absolutely no reason why the under trials be allowed to continue in jail for a moment longer since such continuance of detention would be violative not only of human dignity but also of their fundamental right und'er Art. 21 of the Constitution. [1277A-C]' D E F. G H [The Court directed the High Court to subn1it information regarding the location of Courts, the· number of cases pending in eachj of them and the rea- sons for the delay in disposal of cases to enable it to give necessary direction for setting up more Courts, appointing additional Judges and providing more facilities by way of staff and equipment so as to ensure fulfilment of the funda- mental right of the accused to speedy trial under Art. 21 of the Constilution.] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 57 of 1978. Mrs. K. Hingorani for the Petitioners. U. P. Singh for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by BllAGWATI, J.-This Writ Petition has come up for further direc- tions. Mr. U. P. Singh, on behalf of the State of Bihar, has pointed out that the Order made by us on 19th April, 1979 directing release of Sukhan Sah and Ganga Prasad, being under-trial prisoners detained in Bhagalpur Central Jail and mentioned in the list furnished by Mrs. Hingorani on 16th April, 1979, is not correct, since on further scru- tiny it is found that they do not fall within the category of under-trial prisoners who have boen in jail for a period longer than the maximum term for which they could have been sentenced, if convicted. We. therefore recall our Order directing release of Sukhan Sah and Ganga Prasad. 'Their cases will be con~dered by us again when the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing on the reopening of the Court after the summer vacation. • • \ ( H. KHATOON v. HOME SECRETARY (Bhagwati, !.) 1277 Mrs. Hingorani has handed over to us a list of under-trial prisoner< who are accused of multiple offences and who have already been in jail for the maximum term for which they could be sentenced on conviction, even if the sentences awarded to them were consecu- tive and not concurrent. Now ordinarily when a person is accused of more offences than one, the sentences of imprisonment imposed on him arc directed to run concurrently, but even on the assmnption that the sentences of imprisonment may be consecutive, these under- trial prisoners, mentioned in the list of Mrs. Hingorani, have already suffered incarceration for the maximum period for which they could 'have been sent to jail on conviction. There is absolutely no reason why they should be allowed to continue to remain in jail for a moment longer, since such continuance of detention would be clearly violative not only of human dignity but also of their funda- mental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. We, therefore, direct that these under-trial prisoners he released forthwith. We have also before us a list of under-trial prisoners furnished by Mrs. Hingorani, which gives the names and particulars of those under- trial prisoners who are accused of multiple offences and who have been in jail for a period longer than the maximum for which they could be sentenced on conviction on the basis of the sentences being concurrent, though, if the sentences of imprisonment impose<l on them on conviction \Vere directed to run consecutively, their detention as under-trial prisoners could not be said to have exceeded the max:nrnm term. W c do not for the time being, direct them to be ccleased un- conditionally but when they are produced before the Magistrates or the Court> of Session, they may be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 50/- only, without any surety and without any verification of financial solvency. W c direct that a copy of this Order, may be sent through the High Court of Patna to the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.