LexNIMEON SANGMA & ORS. versus HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • 785 NIMEON SANGMA & ORS. v. HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA & ORS April 30, 1979 rv. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. s. PATHAK AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.J A"11thtistration of Justice-Pre-trial detention-Expeditious disposal of case1 ,Jnclwli11g i1tvestigations and tri.a/s-Sections 167, 209 & 309 of Criminal Proce- dure C~e. 1973. la their petition for the issue of a \Vrit of hab'eas corpus, the pctitionecs alleged -illegal detention of a large number of persongi under guise of the judicial process. lJEW : 1. Criminal Justice breaks down at a point 1,vhen expeditious trial is not '8.ttempted while the affected parties are languishing in jail. The Criminal Procedure Code in Sections 167, 209 and 309 has emphasised the importance of .expeditions disposal of tases including investigations and trials.. [786E] 2. The State Government to take a policy decision \•iith a vie\V to ensure that accused persons, too indigent to set in motion th.:: judicbt prucess, do not ·suffer incarceration silently. [787B] 3. The Government will do \vell to comply with the sy1irit of the Code of Criminal Procedure especially in the matter of pcr:";Oil"i :;.ought to be bound over for good behaviour, persons against whom sumrnon::. ca~es are pending and persoas who have been in custody for more than six months.. This will involve a mass releas'e from j'ai!s, but Governn1ent has to pay homage in sub~ stance a1.d reality to the provisions of the Constitution and the Code. [787C) 1 he Court directed that :- (a) The State do consent to r'elease all persons who have been in custody for over six months and whose trials have not commenced or against whom. charge sheets have not been laid excepting in those cases under Se:clions 302 and 395 J.P.C. [786G] (b) The Stare shall complete investigation within t\vo months in cases where ckarge.,,heets have not been laid. [786H] (C) The Sessions Court concerned should dispose of the cases where charge~ sheet$ have been laid and commitment has been made \Vithin six monthi, [786HJ C!uMIN,AL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 211 of 1979. K. Hingorani for the Petitioners. D. N. Mukherjee for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered by A B c D E F G KRirnNA IYER, J.-This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of H habeas corpus in view of alleged illegal detention of a large number of persons under guise of the judicial proce'ss. 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 S.C.R. A Even \\ithout going into details, we are satisfied that petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 should be released on their own· bonds to the satisfaction of the trial ro:;rt subject to their reporting to the nearest poliee stati0n once every fortnight ~nd appearing in court whenever called upon to do so to take their trial. We direct accordingly. · n So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the State in its affidavit swenr that there is no such person in custody in connection with any case. This matter will be scrutinised further by the State so that it may satisfy it- ~elf th~! no one is in custody except under due process of law. ------ This Court in its earlkr order dated March 5, 1979 has directed the C State to file a statement containing particulars of the under-trial prisoners who have been confined in Jail for a period of over six months without their trials having commenced. Further details as to the ages of such ·under-trials, the dates from which they were confined and the offences with which they were 9harged were also called for. In the reply state- ment put in by the respondent, we find a larg~ number of cases where D · detention for considerable periods, without the trial having even com- menced, is being su!Iered by various persons. Criminal justice breaks dawn, at a point when expeditious frial is not attempted while the affec- ted parties are languishing in jail. The Criminal Procedure Code in sections l67, 209 and 309 hns emphasised the importance o[ expedi- E tious disposal of cases includ;ng investigation.s and trials. It is unfor- tunate, indeed pathetic, that there should have b~cn such considerable delay in investigations by the police in.utter disregard of the fact th:it a citizen Jias been deprived of his freedom on the ground that he is ac- cused of an ofience. We do not approve of this course and breach of the rule of law and express our strong displeasure at this chaotic state F of a!Iairs verging on wholesale breach of human
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.