Thursday, November 21, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Inability of police authorities to serve summons in the specified time frame is major bottleneck in criminal law process: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court while allowing the bail application said that inability of the police authorities to serve summons and execute coercive measures issued by the learned trial courts in the specified time frame is an endemic problem and a major bottleneck in the criminal law process.

The police authorities cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to departmental shortcomings and senior officials cannot evade responsibility.

The Court further said that rights of accused to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are being violated and fair administration of right of bail is being hampered as a consequence of these failures of the police department.

A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir and others.

By means of the second bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case at Police Station-Oncha, District Mainpuri under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.

The applicant is on interim bail granted by the Court on 21.07.2023.

The Court observed that

The failure of the police to serve summons and execute coercive processes issued by the court and its consequences on the fundamental rights of liberty of an accused and fair administration of right of bail arise in these cases directly have to be addressed squarely.

The status reports sent by the trial courts reveal that the trials are being delayed as the police authorities did not serve summons and execute coercive measures in a timely manner to compel appearance of the witnesses on the appointed date in the trial.

The right to bail is derived from statute but cannot be removed from constitutional oversight.

Engagement of fundamental rights in bail jurisprudence is a constant in constitutional law.

Prolonged incarceration of accused persons due to delay in trials violates the fundamental liberties of the accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, when the trial is inordinately delayed for no fault of the accused. Right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Legal issues which have a direct impact on the liberty of the prisoner and administration of fair justice in bail jurisdiction often arise squarely for consideration in the facts of a bail application. Declining to decide such issues on the footing of a narrow interpretation of bail jurisdiction will amount to abdication of constitutional obligations of this Court and will result in miscarriage of justice.

The Court said that in this wake, the powers of the courts to draw criminal proceedings or even contempt proceedings against the erring police officials for failing to serve summons or executing coercive processes have to be supplemented by effective departmental procedures delineating responsibility and fixing accountability in the police. An independent and effective internal accountability system in the police force for ensuring service of summons, and execution of coercive processes in a time bound framework may well be the need of the hour. A composite scheme of departmental accountability to ensure timely service of summons and execution of warrants, coexisting with provisions in the Cr.P.C and powers of contempt of court for penalising acts interfering in the administration of justice will facilitate speedy conclusion of trials, besides obviating possible criminal litigation against police officials.

“True it is that judicial power is the monopoly of courts and judicial orders are the prerogative of courts. It is also that realization of fundamental rights of citizens is the obligation of all organs of State and dispensation of justice to citizens is the responsibility of all instrumentalities of governance. The police cannot deny its statutory duty to compel prompt appearance of witnesses by timely service of summons and execution of warrants on orders of the courts. The State cannot abnegate its constitutional obligation to protect the fundamental rights of prisoners who suffer prolonged incarceration due to delayed trials. Neither institution can escape accountability.

Failure of the police authorities and neglect of the State Government to acknowledge their statutory duties and constitutional obligations respectively will lead to miscarriage of justice. Prisoners spend long years in jail simply because the police authorities do not ensure appearance of witnesses on a timely basis in defiance of orders passed by the trial courts. Failure of justice becomes more acute because many of the prisoners belong to marginalized sections of the society and are incapacitated by poverty and legal illiteracy”, the Court further observed while allowing the bail application.

The following arguments made by Bratendra Singh, counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Paritosh Kumar Malviya, AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:-

I. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and had always cooperated with the investigations and joined the trial proceedings.

II. The trial is moving at a snail’s pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial.

III. The status report sent by the trial court records that delay in the trial is also being occasioned by the failure of the police authorities to serve summons and execute coercive measures issued by the trial court.

IV. Inordinate delay in concluding trial has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence and violates the rights of the applicant to speedy trial.

V. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

VI. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

The Court ordered that,

Let the applicant- Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on the sureties already furnished while being enlarged on interim bail. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(a) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

(b) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

spot_img

News Update