SRINAGAR: Taking strong exception to prolonged trial delays in Jammu and Kashmir, the Supreme Court has granted bail to an undertrial prisoner who has remained behind bars for seven years, while censuring the Union Territory administration for what it termed a “mockery” of the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. The development was first reported by Live Law.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan came down heavily on the prosecuting agency after it emerged that only seven witnesses had been examined over seven years, despite the prosecution intending to produce 17 more.
“We propose to take a very strict view of the matter,” the bench observed, directing the Home Secretary of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to appear online at the next hearing and submit details of all criminal trials where accused persons have been in custody for more than five years.
The petitioner, accused in a 2018 murder case registered in Samba district under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code, had approached the apex court after being denied regular bail by the High Court. He has been in judicial custody since his arrest following the alleged offence on October 4, 2018.
During the hearing, the bench reviewed a status report from the trial court and expressed sharp dissatisfaction over the lack of progress. Justice Pardiwala rebuked the UT’s counsel, stating, “Is this a joke? You have made a mockery of Article 21. You have made a mockery of this concept of speedy trial… What is this man doing in jail past seven years?”
The court noted that although charges were framed in February 2019 and the prosecution was directed to begin evidence shortly thereafter, progress stalled almost entirely. Of 82 hearings conducted in the case, not a single witness had been examined in many instances. In total, only seven witnesses had testified over the entire period.
The prosecution attributed the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent legal proceedings initiated by the deceased’s widow, who sought further investigation. The High Court later ordered a de novo investigation, resulting in a supplementary chargesheet filed in 2022. However, the bench said these explanations could not justify the continuing stagnation.
“During the COVID pandemic, are you suggesting that across the country all trials had come to a standstill?” Justice Pardiwala asked, rejecting the argument that the pandemic alone accounted for the delay.
The UT’s counsel further submitted that several witnesses were from Haryana and had failed to appear despite summonses and warrants. The court remained unconvinced, pointing out that after 2022 there had been virtually no progress even after procedural hurdles were resolved.
Calling the trial court’s report “extremely disappointing,” the bench said the situation reflected poorly on the prosecuting agency. It questioned the necessity of examining 17 additional witnesses and the adverse impact if they were not produced, suggesting that the case had been allowed to drift without urgency.
“In a case of this nature, the State/prosecuting agency owes an explanation for the gross and inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial,” the court said.
Considering the prolonged incarceration and slow pace of proceedings, the bench ordered the immediate release of the petitioner on bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court.
The court also took note of submissions that this was not an isolated case. Counsel for the petitioner informed the bench that hundreds of undertrial prisoners in Jammu and Kashmir had been languishing in jail for over a decade with trials pending.
“If what is told is true, this is beyond our comprehension,” the bench observed, describing the situation as “extraordinary” and warranting urgent corrective action.
Accordingly, the Home Secretary has been directed to file a comprehensive response within four weeks and place on record details of all pending criminal trials where accused persons have remained in custody for more than five years.
