Long Pendency Of Criminal Appeals : Supreme Court Issues Notice To Allahabad High Court

The division bench of Justices SK Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy while considering the note submitted by Additional Advocate General, Garima Prasad with regards to the guidelines that could be adopted by the High Court to deal with the aspects in each case said, "We issue notice to the Allahabad High Court. Matter to be heard on September 22, 2021."

Taking into consideration Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad's submission that there were almost 7400 convicts who were languishing in jail for more than 10 years and that there were some convicts who were poor and did not have resources, the Top Court asked the State Government to take some action with regards to the release of convicts.

"We would expect that even before the next date, the state govt itself takes some action for release of the convicts," court said.

Court Room Exchange

Appearing on behalf of the State, Additional Advocate General, Garima Prashad submitted that the suggestions that were made were based on the policy that was already existing in the state.

Upon AAG's submission, Justice Kaul said that the Court intended to deal on a very limited aspect.

"We're only on a limited aspect here. We were wanting to lay down some norms on the reason only on the ground that appeals have not been heard for years. People can't be in custody for long," said Justice Kaul.

On the point of people being in custody for long, AAG submitted that there was a problem on the part of the convicts since either their counsels weren't ready to argue on merits or they repeatedly kept moving bail applications instead of filing applications for urgent listing.

"The High Court judges are in deep anguish since the counsels are not ready to argue on merits. They repeatedly keep on moving bail applications instead of an application for urgent listing," added AAG.

"You say that lawyers aren't ready to argue. Why can't you consider appointing a lawyer from the panel?" said Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

"The lawyers appointed aren't accepted by the convicts. That is the problem," replied AAG.

Highlighting on the fact of the convicts being non-traceable post their release, AAG said, "If during the pendency of appeal, they are granted bail, the persons become untraceable. That's another problem faced. Once the bail is granted, they consider it as acquittal."

Upon Justice SK Kaul highlighting that there were so many cases where bail was rejected 3/4 years ago, AAG said that she had specifically mentioned a suggestion that the convicts should approach the High Court and not Supreme Court.

Report of the suggestions submitted by the State of Uttar Pradesh

The State of Uttar Pradesh in its note submitted has laid down two broad criterion that could be taken into consideration while considering bail plea:

1. The total period of actual imprisonment undergone
2. Period of pendency of criminal appeal

The following suggestions have been suggested within such category:

• Heinous nature of the crime
• Past conduct and criminal history- Bail Inquiry
• Deliberate delay in pursuing appeal
• Appellant-Convict to approach the High Court at the first instance

Background

The Supreme Court on July 26, 2021, had taken the view that the long pendency of appeals at the Allahabad High Court must be decided on broad parameters framed by the Court and had suggested to consider the period undergone, the heinousness of the crime, the accused's age, the period taken in the trial, and whether the appellants are diligently prosecuting the appeals.

Upon Additional Advocate General, Garima Prasad's submission that she would furnish a note suggesting the guidelines that could be adopted by the High Court itself, the Court had also called for suggestions for the instant 18 matters based on which it will examine whether those cases should be remitted to the High Court for consideration or some obvious cases that can be dealt with at the very threshold.

It had also directed the High Court to assist AAG in formulating the note and suggestions following interaction between the Standing Counsel Vishnu Shankar Jain, the Registrar of the High Court and the AAG.

In the batch of pleas, the period of custody ranges from nine to fifteen years, except for the case of Sudan Singh, where it is seven years. On an earlier occasion, it was submitted by Advocate Nagendra Singh and Advocate on Record Ronak Karanpuria that the pending matters are unlikely to be heard soon.

Title: Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Click Here To Read/ Download Order