Right to Speedy Trial - The Legal Chamber

Framing of Charges Delayed for 4+ Years: Supreme Court’s Strong Directives to Trial Courts

2Mar

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Framing of Charges Delayed for 4+ Years: Supreme Court’s Strong Directives to Trial Courts

This Supreme Court judgment addresses the issue of inordinate delay in framing charges, holding that such delays, even without a statutory timeline under Cr.P.C., violate the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Court emphasized that systemic inefficiencies or accused non-cooperation do not justify indefinite postponement of this crucial stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from an incident on April 10, 2021, where the appellant, Shubham Ganpati @ Ganesh Rathod, along with other co-accused, allegedly assaulted the victim, Akash @ Bala Shivaji Sargar, with deadly weapons including a sickle and knife. The prosecution's case, based on the complainant who claimed to be an eyewitness, stated that the appellant specifically struck the deceased on his head with a sickle. The...

Supreme Court Rules: Delayed Investigations Violate Fundamental Rights

In this appeal, the Supreme Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC was a non-speaking order devoid of application of mind and was therefore invalid. Furthermore, the inordinate delay of over 11 years in completing the investigation violated the appellant's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from the alleged irregular issuance of arms licenses in 2004-2005 when the appellant, an IAS officer, served as the District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority in Saharsa, Bihar. An FIR was registered in 2005 alleging that licenses were granted to unfit, non-resident, and even fictitious persons without p...

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in UAPA Bail Appeals :Trial Delay vs. Terror Charges

The Supreme Court, while dismissing appeals against bail grant and refusal under the UAPA, emphasized the prima facie test for bail under the stringent Act. It declined to interfere with the High Court's reasoned analysis of the chargesheet evidence, distinguishing the roles of the accused. The Court underscored the right to a speedy trial, directing the conclusion of proceedings within two years due to the accused's prolonged incarceration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered in January 2020 against 17 individuals, including Saleem Khan (Accused No. 11) and Mohd. Zaid (Accused No. 20), for alleged conspiracy under the IPC and various offences under the UAPA and Arms Act. The allegations involved connections with terrorist activities and organisations. The inves...