Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently emphasized that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution applies universally, irrespective of the nature of the crime. 

This observation was made by a single judge bench at Aurangabad, comprising Justice SG Mahare, while hearing a bail application of a 24-year-old man who was booked in a rape case under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The applicant submitted that he had been in custody since his arrest in December 2020, and although the charges were framed on February 1, 2022, there had been no progress in the trial. 

It was argued that the Public Prosecutor had submitted the list of witnesses at the time the charges were framed, but since then, no witnesses had been called to testify. The applicant also contended that he was often not produced from jail, leading to repeated adjournments of the case.

The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the delays were not solely the fault of the prosecution, pointing out that on many occasions, the matter was adjourned at the request of the applicant when his lawyer was absent. 

He emphasized the seriousness of the offense and suggested that rather than granting bail, the court should expedite the trial.

The high court while granting bail said that, "Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. Here the prosecutor before the trial Court failed to ensure speedy trial. His conduct shows that he is not serious about the trial. The applicant is incarcerated for more than three and half years in the crime. Still there is no effective progress in the trial," the order reads.

The high court further said that it was the failure of the State to assist the Court in expediting the trial.

"The copies of the order-sheets placed on record reveals that most of the time the accused was not produced in the Court from the jail. It is the failure of the State to assist the Court in expediting the trial. The approach of the Court is also not happy. The material stages of the trial are casually changed only on filing another applications. It is really unfortunate that the prosecution is not diligent in calling the witnesses for evidence after framing the charge on 1st February 2022," the order states. 

Case title: Aslam Kalim Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra