Allahabad HC Criminal Appeals Pendency : SC Suggests Convicts Serving More Than 14 Yrs Sentence Be Granted Bail Or Considered For Early Remission

Expressing concern about the long pendency of criminal appeals before the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court, on Friday laid down some broad parameters that can be adopted by the High Court while granting bail.The Court ordered : "A list should be prepared for the ones who have served more than 14 years and is not a repeat offender. In all these cases there is a high possibility that if they are released they may not be interested to also pursue their appeals. The second category can be one where people have served more than 10 years and in one go bail can be granted."A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh expressed disappointment in the manner the bail applications for accused who have been in custody for 10-17 years have been dealt with in the State of Uttar Pradesh. On a previous occasion the Bench had asked the High Court and the U.P. Government to chalk out a plan and accordingly issue directions to meet the exigencies of the situation. Considering the length of period of custody, the Bench lamented that the criminal justice system neglects the reformation and approach the concerns of the prisoners from only a punitive perspective.Justice Kaul orally remarked : "The Allahabad High Court has to do some thinking. Bail is rejected after 11 years stating heinous crime. Of course crime is heinous, but is no reformative approach possible?[...]If later the appeal is allowed, who is going to give back the years lost…We do not bother about the reformative part, we look at them from a punitive perspective only."On perusal of the status report filed by the Allahabad High Court in compliance of its order, the Bench stated that, it appeared that in the 18 matters remitted to the High Court for bail, the Counsels for the accused on all the three occasions did not press the matter to be taken on board. "We have a report of the High Court which seems to suggest that there are 18 matters remitted to High Court for consideration of bail were listed on 15th, 16th and 17th Nov, 2021 and the appearances were not put in on behalf of appellants. Despite the matter being listed in the roster bench, none appeared to press the matter to be taken up on board." Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Goel, appearing for the High Court submitted that the affidavit was filed on 15.11.2021 and sought the Court's permission to file a fresh affidavit as some changes have taken place in the interim. "This affidavit was filed on 15th November, and we are now on 25th Feb. Since then in respect to these 18 matters, one has been disposed off, in one judgment has been reserved, in one accused is not found to be in custody. The lawyers have not appeared despite being on record. I may be permitted to file an updated status. These matters have been listed for an average of 6 times in the last 4 months." The Bench granted permission for the same - "The Counsel appearing for the High Court seeks to file an updated status report. He states that some matters have been dealt with while in other matters none appears for the accused." The Bench acknowledged that there was nothing to bar the State from considering the case of remission for the prisoners who have served 14 years of sentence. "The problem is aggravated by the fact that people do not appear in appeal. What have you done for UP prisoners release on probation rules? If someone has already put in 14 years nothing stops you from releasing them irrespective of the pendency of appeal", Justice Kaul orally remarked. Senior Advocate, Ms. Garima Prasad appearing for the State of U.P. agreed that there is no bar to consider such cases for remission. It was pointed out that the High Court and the State Government should coordinate to see that cases eligible for remission are automatically considered. "There must be coordination between the State Government and High Court to see cases which are pending and have crossed the requirement for consideration by the State Govt. for bail. A system has to be developed to see that these cases are automatically considered. Some of these prisoners do not have the wherewithal to know what is happening. This is a concern we have", Justice Kaul said. Advocate, Mr. Upadhyay, appearing for one of the accused, submitted that he had been in custody for 17 years and his bail was rejected because of the unpreparedness of the advocate before the High Court. "I am in jail for 17 years. When the bail application got listed the High Court said that argue on merit. That day the Counsel appeared and the counsel was not prepared to argue on merit, the application got dismissed. From that day my matter has not been heard." The Bench was perturbed to note that even after serving 17 years in prison, the accused was refused bail only because of the unpreparedness of the Advocate representing them. "Mr. Goel, see this is the problem, I can understand the...

Allahabad HC Criminal Appeals Pendency : SC Suggests Convicts Serving More Than 14 Yrs Sentence Be Granted Bail Or Considered For Early Remission

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags