Investigation: Speedy investigation – By impugned order, CBI was directed to conduct trial within six months – The case against the petitioner-accused was that he was leader of a mob which indulged in arson, loot and mischief of burning of house of cabinet minister – His bail applications were rejected by Sessions Court and High Court – While rejecting bail application, Supreme Court directed that trial be conducted as far as possible within six months – In the instant application seeking modification of the said order, it was stated that CBI was conducting investigation and took over only on January 6, 2016 and one and a half years have gone by and, there was voluminous task which was time consuming and trial could not commence unless report under s.173 Cr.P.C is filed by CBI which would take long time – Disposing of the application, the Court, Held: There is no indication as to what proceedings have been taken up by the CBI so far, and why more time will be required and how much more time will be required – No investigating agency can take unduly long time in completing investigation – Speedy investigation is recognized as a part of fundamental right of fair procedure under Art.21 of the Constitution – Since accused has been in custody for more than two years and investigation is pending with the CBI for more than one and a half years, CBI must complete investigation at the most within next two months so that trial can commence latest by July 10, 2018 and concluded by the end of the year – Since order declining bail was passed on 30th January, 2017 and more than one year has gone by, it will be open to the petitioner, if he is still in custody, to move a bail application before the trial court in accordance with law – Constitution of India – Art.21.
Investigation: In number of case, investigations remain pending for unduly long time which is not conducive to administration of criminal justice – There is need for timelines for completing investigation and for having in-house oversight mechanism wherein accountability for adhering to laid down timelines can be fixed at a different levels in the hierarchy . Constitution of India – Art.21 – Speedy trial – There is implicit right under Art.21 for speedy trial which in turn encompasses speedy investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision and retrial – To determine whether undue delay has occurred, one must have regard to nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, workload of the court and the investigating agency, systemic delays – Inordinate delay may be taken as presumptive proof of prejudice particularly when accused is in custody so that prosecution does not become persecution – Court has to balance and weigh several relevant factors – Though it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribe any mandatory outer time limit and the court may only examine effect of delay in every individual case on the anvil of Art. 21 of the Constitution, there is certainly a need for in-house mechanism to ensure that there is no undue delay in completing investigation – Delay/laches – Investigation.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 : [1978] 2 SCR 621 ; Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 : [1979] 3 SCR 169 ; Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992)
1 SCC 225 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 325 ; P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578
– relied on.
Investigation: Undue delay – Need for a mechanism to take remedial steps if there is undue delay in investigation – s.57 Cr.P.C. puts a bar on detention by a police officer beyond 24 hours excepting time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court – s.167(1) Cr.P.C. provides that where investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours, the accused has to be produced before the Magistrate and further detention of the accused has to be authorized by the Magistrate – It is well established that authorization for such detention has to be given having regard to the progress in investigation – Even a Magistrate cannot authorise detention in police custody beyond 15 days – After judicial custody for more than 90 days in serious cases stipulated therein and 60 days in other cases, there is a provision for mandatory default bail requirement if there is delay in investigation beyond the said period – In summons case, if investigation is not concluded within six months, the same has to be stopped unless continuation is found necessary – However, there is no express outer limit for investigation in other cases but delay in investigation may affect reasonableness of procedure specially when a person is in custody and is unable to furnish bail – Hence the need to lay down timelines for completing investigation with a view to give effect to the mandate of Art. 21 of the Constitution – Certain directions given to MHA – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.57, 167(1).
Law Commission’s Report 14 th Report (1958) and 154th Report (1996) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.