Supreme Court Directs State Of UP To File Additional Paper Book Before The HC In Plea Seeking Release Of Convicts

Supreme Court today, while hearing a plea seeking release of convicts who have undergone their sentence but have not been released by the State of UP, due to pending Criminal Appeals, noted, that the High Court was inclined to dispose the matter expeditiously, however, the same was not complied by the petitioner, for the “reasons best known to them”.

Remanding the matter back to the High Court, the bench said, “… we find no reason to take the relief claimed forward.”

A Division Bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, while passing order in the matter, said,

“As per the submissions, we find no reason to take the relief claimed forward. The order-sheet produced by the petitioner makes it clear that the HC was inclined to hear the criminal appeal expeditiously.

For the reasons best known to the petitioner, the order by the HC was not complied. Our attention is also invited to the fact that the petitioner 1 is a foreign national and as per State Law, premature release of such convict is not permissible.

It is also pointed out that during the pendency, petitioner indulged in other offences, trial of which is still pending. We direct the state govt. to file paper-book as per rules, if not done already.

High Court may endeavour to dispose of the matter within 4 months from filing of Additional paper book by the State, which may be done within 2 weeks from now.”

Advocate Rishi Malhotra appearing for the petitioner, on an earlier date, submitted that the state of affairs in the State of UP are shocking.

Reply was accordingly sought from the State Government.

“Speedy trial though not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 and no procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as just and fair and would fall foul of Article 21. Infact, it further held that a reasonably expeditious trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21.It would be travesty of justice that a poor because of their meagre means continues to remain in detention because of the fact that they cannot afford lawyers to get justice in their cases,” the plea stated.

Case Title: Ishaque v. State of UP