Supreme Court Asks Delhi High Court To Have A Relook On The Assignment Of Cases To Trial Courts For Speedy Trials

While hearing a special leave petition assailing Delhi High Court's order of dismissing the bail application filed by an accused, the Supreme Court recently observed that merely because the trial court judge is the District and Sessions Judge, it cannot imply that he is burdened more than necessary.The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh observed, "We are of the view merely because the learned Judge concerned in the cases is the District and Sessions Judge, it cannot imply that he is burdened more than necessary or we lay down impractical timelines. It does appear to us that the High Court needs to have a relook on the assignment of cases to facilitate a speedier trial and thus, we call upon the High Court to examine whether the cases including the present one can be distributed to facilitate the conclusion of the trial on an early date. The High Court will take necessary steps."In pursuance of the order dated October 4, 2021, the bench also perused the status report of the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. Pursuant to perusal, the bench in its order said, "The learned District and Sessions Judge points out that out of 87 prosecution witnesses in the instant case, 14 of them have been examined and it will take about 15 months to examine the remaining 73 witnesses considering the nature of evidence and cross-examination of the said witnesses."The bench in its order further noted that the District Judge in the report had pointed out that he is a designated Court for dealing with Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, cases investigated by the Special Cell, Delhi Police, Electricity Act, Official Secrets Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act and SEBI Act. "There are 649 matters pending in that Court as on October 12, 2021 out of which 4 are time-bound. In 142 cases, the accused persons are in judicial custody, 9 cases are related to various bomb blasts in Delhi, and in 5 connected cases pertaining to serial bomb blasts in Greater Kailash, Connaught Place, India Gate and Karol Bagh, there are 1030 total prosecution witnesses and that case is being taken up on every Saturday but till date, only 257 witnesses have been examined."Case Before Delhi High Court Mohd Abdul Rehman had preferred an application seeking regular/ interim bail in FIR registered u/s Sections 18/18B/20 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. On July 30, 2021 APP for the State, while accepting the notice, sought time to file a status report indicating Rehman's previous involvement. The bench, after perusing the status report filed by the APP, had observed, "A Status Report has been filed. The first charge sheet against the present petitioner was filed wherein 72 witnesses were cited. Out of 72 witnesses, only 14 witnesses have been examined so far. It has further been stated that a supplementary charge-sheet was also filed against the present petitioner on 18.03.2019 in which 10 additional witnesses were cited. It is further stated that there are a total 17 accused persons in the present case out of which only 6 accused persons have been arrested so far and 11 are yet to be arrested who have been declared proclaimed offenders."Thereafter on December 2, 2021 the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri after perusing the status report had disposed of the bail application by directing the trial court to make an endeavour to proceed with the trial and complete the same as early as possible. Case Before Top CourtAssailing the order dated December 2, the petitioner had approached the Top Court and notice was issued in the same on August 16, 2021. Petitioner's counsel had contended that out of the 82 cited witnesses of the prosecution, only 14 had been examined and that the proceedings of the trial Court showed that the trial was proceeding at a snail pace. It was also counsel's contention that the petitioner was not produced before the Trial Court for quite some time. He further contended that he was agreeable to proceeding with the trial in the petitioner's absence, except identification of the witnesses by the petitioner, but both the Court and the prosecution had not been willing for it.The petitioner's counsel had also submitted that he had been in custody for five years and eight months and had referred to the recent judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, 2021(3) 713, to contend that despite the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the ability of the Constitutional Court to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of constitution and where the trial had not been concluded within a reasonable period of time and the period of incarceration already undergone had exceeded the substantial part of the prescribed sentence, could not be impugned.On October 4, 2021 ASG SV Raju had submitted that out of 17 accused, one was discharged and the matter was pending in...

Supreme Court Asks Delhi High Court To Have A Relook On The Assignment Of Cases To Trial Courts For Speedy Trials

Shruti Kakkar

Tags