Nueva Delhi: Noting that a defendant has a fundamental right to rapid trial, regardless of the seriousness of his crime, the Supreme Court has argued that keeping a subtral prisoner in jail for six to seven years without a verdict was equivalent to violation of his rights and bond. be granted to him. He launched a defendant, who is being prosecuted under the UPA anti -terrorism law, on bail, since he had been in custody during the last five years.
A JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan Judges also questioned the trend of prosecutors agencies to examine a large number of witnesses during the trial that resulted in a delay. He said that the moment has come to consider the issue of delay and bond in his true and adequate perspective to also protect the interest of a defendant who suffers a lot and does not even compensate financially if it is acquitted after a long imprisonment.
“We can sound as if they were in some guidelines, but time has come to consider this issue of delay and bail in its true and adequate perspective. If a defendant must obtain a final verdict after an imprisonment of six to seven years in jail As a subtraction in jail.
He said: “The stress of long judgments in accused people, who remain innocent until demonstrated, can also be significant. Accused people are not financially compensated by what could be a long period of imprisonment prior to trial. There may be lost a job or accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships and spent a considerable amount of money in legal fees.
In this case, the defendant was arrested in March 2020 in Chhattisgarh while carrying articles generally used in Naxalite activities: Walkie Talkie, led lens, etc. The Prosecutor’s Office intended to examine up to 100 witnesses in the case, but only 42 have been examined in five years.
Although the bank said that the court should not normally exercise its discretion with the purpose of granting bond in serious crimes, however, he declared that the bond could be granted in view of the violation of Rights of a defendant Due to excessive delay.
“Five years have passed that he is in judicial custody. The wise lawyer who appears for the State has no idea that the time that is probably consumed to complete the recording of oral evidence. We have no choice but to order that ordering to order liberation From the appellant on bail, “said the bank.