Embargo on bail in death or life imprisonment cases cannot override right to speedy trial: J&K High Court

The grant of bail to one Raman Kumar, the complainant, who was detained for over 13 years without his trial being completed, Judge Rajnesh Oswal observed,

“In examining the obstacles to the granting of bail in offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, an appropriate balance must be maintained to ensure that the accused's right to a speedy trial is not violated.”

Kumar was arrested in 2011 in connection with the murder of one Netar Singh. Police investigation revealed that Kumar had an alleged illicit relationship with co-accused Neelam Rani, which led to enmity with the deceased. According to the prosecution, both the accused conspired to murder Netar Singh.

The charges against them were based on Sections 302/34, 201 RPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Although more than 13 years had passed, the trial was still ongoing and the closing arguments were delayed for more than five years.

The plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Vivek Sharma, argued that Kumar's prolonged detention violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial. He pointed out that the court was without a presiding judge, which led to delays, and that despite numerous hearings, the closing arguments were not yet completed.

He further pointed out that the applicant had been in detention for more than 13 years and that the trial had been pending for five years. In his view, this was a gross violation of the applicant's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

On the other hand, Mr. Vishal Bharti, the Assistant Advocate General, representing the respondent, opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner was accused of a serious offence punishable with death or life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and therefore bail was not available under law.

Justice Oswal thoroughly examined the course of the trial and expressed serious concerns over the delays. The court observed that the prosecution had delayed the proceedings without adequate justification and the court had failed to ensure timely disposal of the case.

The prosecution had already completed its evidence gathering in 2014, but later attempted to summon more witnesses, causing further delays. The court found that despite multiple opportunities by the prosecution, the evidence gathering was not completed until 2018 and the closing arguments were still pending in 2024.

“It is an acknowledged fact that the complainant has been in custody for more than 13 years. The manner in which the trial in this indictment has been conducted is quite shocking and disturbing. While the prosecution has delayed the trial without giving any reason, the court has also failed miserably to ensure that the trial is completed within a reasonable time frame,” noted the bank.

Justice Oswal criticised the manner in which the court granted adjournments which enabled the prosecution to prolong the case and reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 and cannot be compromised by procedural delays. The court also cited the Supreme Court's observation that denial of bail cannot be a form of punishment, especially when the proceedings are unduly prolonged.

The Court recognised that the long period of detention and the delays on the part of the public prosecutor required relief, granted the application and released the applicant on bail.

Case Title: Raman Kumar v UT of J&K

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 254

Click here to read/download the judgment