'Double Standards' : Supreme Court Questions States For Opposing Bail Without Ensuring Speedy Trial

Within a span of two days, the Supreme Court has come down heavily on the States of Punjab and Maharashtra for opposing accused's bail pleas despite failing in their duty to conduct trials in a timely manner.A partial Court working days bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sheel Nagu yesterday passed an order imposing Rs.50,000 personal cost on a Senior Superintendent of Police of Punjab. Apparently, the cost aspect was directed to be kept in abeyance, pending the State's reply in the matter.Today, the bench rapped the Maharashtra government over a similar approach, noting that the accused in the subject case was languishing in jail since 4 years but only 2 witnesses (out of 45 mentioned in the chargesheet) had been examined.Briefly put, the case pertained to one Kelvin Chindozie Okoro, a foreign national booked by the Maharashtra police in a 2022 murder case under Sections 302, 364, 201, 149, 147 and 146 of IPC, Sections 14 and 14(b) of the Foreigners' Act and Section 12(1)(a)(b) of the Passport Act. The accused was arrested on 7 May 2022 and his first bail application rejected by the High Court on merits.Citing change in circumstances, as a witness did not identify him as part of the assailants, the accused filed a second bail application. But the same was also rejected vide the impugned order, while expediting the trial. Aggrieved, the accused moved the Supreme Court.During today's hearing, in response to a submission by the Maharashtra counsel that 2 witnesses had been examined (in 4 years), Justice Amanullah remarked, "Are you doing a favor? Chargesheet must have been filed in 90 days, otherwise he would have been released on bail. So 3 months out of 4 years plus...for 4 years after chargesheet, nothing? Whose responsibility it is? I issued one notice in Punjab...I am going to pass an order imposing Rs.50,000 cost and start with Maharashtra now...every day Maharashtra is coming...everyday! what is this happening?"The Maharashtra counsel attempted to explain, saying "these are old matters" and there is improvement in the State prosecution. "I know our fault and we are trying to improve" he said. He further submitted that almost 100% presence of accused during trial has been achieved by the State.However, Justice Amanullah again remarked that the State is repeatedly in default, even in matters concerning personal liberty. "Maharashtra is full of it...everyday we find that Maharashtra is in default. 3 years, 4 years, 5 years. Big, big statutes...and liberty of a person. Just [...] opposing bail but nothing on the ground. Double standards of the State...we will expose you before the public."Later, noting inter-alia that the petitioner was a foreign national, the judge said that he did not "deserve" bail. "You come to a foreign land and you do this? How dare you do it in India?"Not inclined to grant bail at this stage, the bench dismissed the petition. However, the matter was kept pending to await Maharashtra government's counter-affidavit on the limited point of delay in trials. The order was dictated thus,"The petition stands dismissed. However, we notice a disturbing aspect that is, the petitioner is in custody for over 4 years and out of 45 witnesses in the trial, only 2 have been examined. This aspect is something which has been bothering the Court for quite some time, as the State opposes the prayer for bail of the accused [tooth and nail] but when it comes to discharging its obligation by conducting a trial without undue delay, it is found totally lacking...only for the purposes of considering the counter-affidavit of the State specifically on the point as to why such a situation is prevailing, list alongwith [the matter concerning Punjab] on July 24."The bench also called on the State to come up with a specific policy to tackle the situation. "In the said affidavit, the State will come out with a specific policy of how it proposes to deal with this situation so that an accused is not deprived of his liberty for reasons beyond his control and only because of a lapse of the prosecution."The two matters have now been listed together.Case Title: KELVIN CHINDOZIE OKORO Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, SLP(Crl) No. 11928/2026Related - If Prosecuting Agency Can't Ensure Speedy Trial, They Shouldn't Oppose Bail Citing Seriousness Of Offence : Supreme Court

'Double Standards' : Supreme Court Questions States For Opposing Bail Without Ensuring Speedy Trial

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

'Double Standards' : Supreme Court Questions States For Opposing Bail Without Ensuring Speedy Trial

Debby Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers