Gravity Of Offence No Bar To Grant Of Bail When Trial Fails To Progress With Reasonable Pace: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the gravity of an offence, by itself, is not an absolute bar on the grant of bail when the trial does not progress with reasonable expedition.Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav made the observation while granting bail to an accused, who had remained in custody for over 12 years in a 2013 murder-cum-robbery case, noting that the trial had made little...
The Delhi High Court has held that the gravity of an offence, by itself, is not an absolute bar on the grant of bail when the trial does not progress with reasonable expedition.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav made the observation while granting bail to an accused, who had remained in custody for over 12 years in a 2013 murder-cum-robbery case, noting that the trial had made little progress despite the passage of several years.
“….even when the accused stands charged with the most serious of offences, the seriousness of the charge cannot, by itself, operate as an absolute bar to the grant of bail once it is demonstrated that the trial has ceased to progress with reasonable expedition and the accused's right to a speedy trial stands infringed,” the Court said.
Justice Kaurav was dealing with the bail plea filed by one Shivam Gupta, who was arrested in January 2014 in connection with an FIR registered for the offences under Sections 396, 412 and 120B of the IPC.
The Delhi Police alleged that Gupta, along with three to four associates, trespassed into a house in November 2013 after inducing the 14-year-old son of the complainant to open the gate on the pretext of a courier delivery.
The intruders allegedly held the deceased woman at knife-point, confined her minor children and thereafter fled with jewellery and cash. The woman was subsequently found dead. The post-mortem attributed her death to asphyxia caused by manual strangulation and smothering.
The accused had remained in judicial custody continuously since January 5, 2014. As on March 30, he had undergone 12 years, 2 months and 25 days of incarceration. Out of 32 prosecution witnesses, only 15 had been examined.
Granting bail to him, the Court acknowledged that the allegations were grave and that the accused had criminal antecedents. However, it noted that the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that even in serious offences, the right to speedy trial must be given due consideration while deciding bail.
The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which held that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail where continued incarceration would offend the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
Justice Kaurav noted that the accused had already spent more than 12 years in custody, which was “a substantial fraction” of even the maximum non-capital sentence that could follow upon conviction for the offence under Section 396 of IPC.
Taking note of the slow pace of the trial, the Court observed that only 15 of the 32 witnesses had been examined over more than 12 years. It also found that the delay was substantially attributable to the non-appearance of police witnesses before the trial court, rather than any act or omission on the accused's part.
Further, the judge noted that one police officer had sought exemption from personal appearance on four occasions, while the original investigating officer had failed to appear on five occasions.
The Court accordingly directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to ensure the appearance of investigating officers and police witnesses on the dates fixed by the trial court.
“Therefore, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi is directed to ensure that investigation officers and police witnesses should appear on the specific dates as required by the concerned Court. A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police for necessary action,” the Court said.
It further noted that three of the four adult co-accused had already been granted regular bail. While observing that parity could not by itself determine the question of bail, the Court held that it is a relevant circumstance when considered alongside the independent ground of prolonged incarceration.
“While parity cannot, by itself, be treated as a determinative ground for bail, particularly where the individual roles of co-accused are shown to differ, it remains a relevant circumstance where it operates alongside the independent and substantial ground of prolonged incarceration,” the Court said while granting regular bail to the accused.
Title: SHIVAM GUPTA v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)