Speedy Justice Requires All Stakeholders To Act With Due Diligence: Uttarakhand HC Directs State To Assist Trial Courts In Long-Pending Trials

The Uttarakhand High Court has granted bail to a murder accused who had remained in judicial custody since 13.07.2016, reiterating that the right to speedy trial is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial prisoner without likelihood of early conclusion of trial cannot be countenanced indefinitely.

Importantly, the Court noted that a police official cited as a prosecution witness had failed to appear for cross-examination on more than fifty dates, due to which the trial proceedings remained stalled for a considerable duration. Observing that prolonged delay in criminal trials on account of avoidable adjournments and repeated absence of witnesses causes prejudice not only to the accused but also to victims, witnesses and society at large, the Court directed prosecution authorities and police officials throughout the State to extend full assistance to trial courts in securing the presence of prosecution witnesses and ensuring due execution of summons, warrants and other coercive processes.

The observations came in an application seeking regular bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 302 and 34 IPC and Section 5/27 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution case, the informant allegedly witnessed the applicant firing upon the deceased inside a bar, while two co-accused persons stood nearby armed with pistols. The applicant had remained in judicial custody since 13.07.2016.

Appearing for the applicant, counsel submitted that although sixteen witnesses had been examined, the trial had not concluded. It was further submitted that despite repeated opportunities, PW-14 had not been produced by the prosecution for cross-examination and that approximately fifty dates had been fixed by the trial court between 2019 and 2025 for the witness's cross-examination, but on most occasions the witness remained absent. Counsel contended that the applicant had undergone incarceration for nearly ten years as an undertrial prisoner and that the delay in conclusion of trial amounted to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Opposing the plea, the State contended that serious allegations relating to the offence of murder had been levelled against the applicant. It was further submitted that PW-14 was a police official and, owing to official exigencies, his examination and cross-examination were not likely to take place in the near future.

After considering the material on record, Justice Alok Mahra noted that the applicant had remained in judicial custody since 13.07.2016 and had undergone incarceration for nearly ten years as an undertrial prisoner. The Court also recorded that the trial had not yet concluded and that some material witnesses were yet to be cross-examined. It further noted that the applicant had earlier been granted short-term bail on several occasions and there was no allegation of misuse of liberty during that period.

Observing that the right to speedy trial is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial prisoner without likelihood of early conclusion of trial cannot be countenanced indefinitely, the Court held that the applicant had made out a fit case for grant of bail and accordingly allowed the application.

On the issue of non-appearance of prosecution witnesses, the Court observed that “it is apparent that PW-14, who is a police official serving under the State, has failed to appear before the learned Trial Court for his cross-examination on more than fifty dates spread over a long period of time. Due to his repeated non-appearance, the trial proceedings have remained stalled for a considerable duration. Such conduct on the part of a prosecution witness, particularly a public servant who is expected to assist the Court in the administration of criminal justice, has caused undue delay in the conclusion of the trial.

The repeated adjournments have seriously affected the right of the accused to a fair and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, the complainant/victim side has also been made to suffer prolonged delay, uncertainty, and mental hardship on account of the pendency of the proceedings.

This Court is further of the considered opinion that prolonged delay in criminal trials on account of avoidable adjournments and repeated absence of witnesses causes prejudice not only to the accused but also to the victims, witnesses, and society at large. The constitutional mandate of speedy justice requires all stakeholders, including the investigating agency, prosecuting authorities, and the Trial Courts, to act with due diligence and ensure that criminal proceedings are conducted efficiently and concluded within a reasonable time in accordance with law”.

Accordingly, the Court directed the trial court to ensure the presence of PW-14 for completion of his cross-examination. It further directed that if the witness again failed to appear without sufficient cause, the trial court would be at liberty to take appropriate coercive measures in accordance with law and recommend initiation of suitable departmental or disciplinary proceedings against the concerned official before the competent authority.

The Court also directed that the Sessions Trial, pending since 2016, be concluded expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments.

Further, it directed that “prosecution authorities as well as all police officials concerned throughout the State extend full assistance and necessary cooperation to trial courts in securing the presence of prosecution witnesses and ensuring due execution of summons, warrants and other coercive processes so that long-pending criminal trials may be concluded expeditiously and brought to their logical conclusion in accordance with law”. The Registrar General was directed to circulate a copy of the order to all District Judges in the State as well as to the Director General of Police for strict compliance.

Case: Vineet Sharma Alias Cheenu Pandit Versus State Of Uttarakhand (8th Bail Application No. 2 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Order