Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man who had been in custody for more than 7 years without facing any trial.

The high court observed that there was a violation of the right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life and personal liberty. It is trite law that an accused has a right to speedy trial and the same is implicit in the scope and ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this case, although the Applicants are under incarceration for about seven years and four months, the trial has not yet commenced and not even a single witness has been examined. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the Applicant’s fundamental right to speedy trial,” the order reads.

A single-judge bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar heard a bail application filed by 2 men, citing that they had been in custody for almost seven years and four months, yet the trial had not commenced.

The crime in this case was lodged on 05.12.2015. Applicant No.1 was arrested on 08.06.2016, and Applicant No.2 was arrested on 10.08.2016.

The charges were framed on 04.12.2018. However, there has been no further progress in the trial.

According to the charge sheet, there are approximately 32 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution.

The applicant no.1 had 5 other cases filed against him, out of which he was acquitted in one case, and in the rest of the cases, he was not arraigned as an accused.

The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that although the trial had not yet started even after seven years and four months, the material on record indicated the involvement of the applicants in the crime.

The applicants submitted that they were willing to reside in another district, as the witnesses were residing in the same locality where the crime was committed.

Mr. Kamran S. Shaikh a/w. Mr. Rameshwar Lokhare, Mr. Sanket Karankot & Mr. Changdev S. Shingade, Advocates for Applicants

Ms. S. S. Kaushik, APP, for Respondent – State

Case title: Amol Duryodhan Kale & Anr vs State of Maharashtra