Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that right to speedy trial is guaranteed by the Constitution.       

• The Rajasthan High Court held this in the case of Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan. 

What is the Background of Kailash Chand v. The State of Rajasthan Case? 

• An application was filed in this case under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• It was the case of the accused that no case was made out for alleged offences and hence he should be granted bail. 
• The petitioner has been in custody for a period of three years  

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed in this case that more than three years have been and only 12 witnesses have been examined out of 30 by the prosecution. 
• It was observed that the trial is continuing at a snail’s pace and it would further take more time to complete the trial.  
• It was held that the accused cannot be kept behind bars in a pending trial for want of production of evidence against him. 
• The Court further observed that the right to speedy trial is guaranteed by the Constitution and it cannot be snatched on the ground of seriousness or heinousness of the crime. 
• Thus, the Court granted bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. 

What is the Origin of Right to Speedy Trial? 

• The right to a speedy trial is a derivation from a provision of Magna Carta. 
• A fair trial implies speedy trial. No procedure can be reasonable, fair and just unless the procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. 
• Quick justice is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 

What is Right to Speedy Trial? 

• Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (1979) 
  • In this case, a writ of habeas corpus become filed on behalf of men and women languishing in jails within the state of Bihar anticipating trial. 
  • A number of them had been in prison had spent maximum sentence which could have been imposed on them for the offence of which they had been accused. 
  • In this case the Supreme Court expanded the scope of interpretation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and held that the right to speedy trial is borne out of Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.  
  • The Supreme Court through Hon’ble P.N. Bhagwati, Justice expressed it’s anguish over the number of undertrials languishing in the jails in India.   
• Santosh De v. Archna Guha (1994) 
  • The Court observed in this case that the delay in conducting the case for 8 years was due to the prosecution. 
  • Also, for the last 14 years there was no progress in the trial of the case. 
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the delay was entirely due to the prosecution which defeats the right of the accused to speedy trial. 
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order quashing the proceedings as the delay defeats the accused right to speedy trial. 
• Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 
  • The Court observed that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal and revision. 
  • The constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is properly reflected in Section 309 of CrPC. 

Is Right to Speedy Trial a Ground for Bail? 

• Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya v. National Investigation Agency (2021) 
  • In this case the accused persons pleaded for post arrest bail. 
  • The Court considering the aspect that the undertrial prisoner has a fundamental right to timely trial granted the benefit of post arrest bail in favour of the appellant on the ground that he had been languishing in jail for a long time. 
• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 
  • The Court observed here that a balance has to be made between the right of the prosecution to lead evidence of it’s choice and establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and simultaneously the right of the accused guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. 
  • The Court held that looking at the length of time spent by the accused in jail and the likelihood of the trial taking still more time to conclude the accused should be released on bail. 
• Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 
  • The Court took cognizance of the fact that there are a large number of under trials languishing in jails. Further, arrest is a draconian measure that must be used sparingly.  
  • It was observed that accused can be considered for enlargement on bail on the basis of unreasonable delay being one of the grounds. 
• Lichhman Ram @ Laxman Ram v. State (2023) 
  • The Rajasthan High Court held that while adjudicating bail application against the backdrop of the right to a speedy trial following factors should be considered: 
    • The delay should not have been a defence tactic. Who has caused the delay is also to be seen. Every delay does not necessarily prejudice the accused. 
    • The aim is not to interpret the right to speedy trial in a manner so as to disregard the nature of offence, gravity of punishment, number of accused and witnesses, prevailing local conditions and other systemic delays 
    • If there is a strong reason to believe that the accused will surely flee from justice if released on bail and it will be a hard task for the investigating agency to reapprehend him, then the benefit of bail should not be extended in his favour. 
    • If it is shown by placing compelling material on record that the release of the accused may create a ruckus in the society or that he will create such a situation wherein the prosecution witnesses will not come forward to depose against him or that he may otherwise hamper the evidence of prosecution in any other manner, then utmost caution needs to be exercised in such cases before granting bail to the accused. 

What is Right to Speedy in International Context? 

• The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of United States of America reads that in all criminal prosecutions accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. 
  • Also, there is a Federal Act of 1974 called the ‘Speedy Trial Act’ which establishes a set of time limits for carrying out major events like information, indictment etc. 
  • In the case of Strunk v. United States the US Supreme Court held that the denial of an accused's right to speedy trial results in a decision to dismiss the indictment or in reversion of a conviction. 
• Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 lays down that ‘Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.’