Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Rajdev Kumar Mathura Yadav @ Pappu, filed a criminal application seeking bail in connection with C.R.No. RC 2/S/2008 registered by the CBI Special Crime Branch, Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 366A, 372, 373 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The applicant had been arrested on 30th September 2008 and had been in custody for nearly 18 months. The trial had not commenced and even charges had not been framed. The applicant contended that the delay was solely attributable to the State and that his constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India had been violated. The CBI argued that the lapses were not attributable to them but to the State police or jail authorities. The court called for a report from the learned District & Sessions Judge, who attributed four causes for the delay: (1) pending bail applications of some accused, (2) non-production of all accused on some dates, (3) absence of the CBI advocate on some dates, and (4) absence of advocates for some accused. The court noted that the first three causes were attributable to the State. The court held that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is not affected by which prosecuting agency is responsible; both Union and State must act in coordination. The court found that the applicant's right to a speedy trial had been violated and granted bail.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Bail - The applicant was arrested on 30th September 2008 and remained in custody for 18 months without trial due to delays caused by the State, including non-production of accused, absence of CBI advocate, and pending bail applications. The court held that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is violated regardless of which agency is responsible, and granted bail. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the constitutional right of a fair and expeditious trial of the applicant has been violated entitling him to be released on bail.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and granted bail to the applicant.
Law Points
- Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
- Bail for violation of constitutional right
- Lapses attributable to State not to be distinguished between prosecuting agencies
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (03) 71
Criminal Application No. 4943 of 2009
Mr. Prabhanjay R. Dave with Sachin P. Dalvi for the applicant, Mr. D.N. Salvi with Mr. Mandar Goswami for the CBI, Mr. A.S. Gadkari APP for the State
Rajdev Kumar Mathura Yadav @ Pappu
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application for bail in a case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and IPC.
Remedy Sought
Applicant seeks bail on the ground of violation of right to speedy trial under Article 21.
Filing Reason
Applicant has been in custody for 18 months without trial due to delays attributable to the State.
Issues
Whether the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 has been violated.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail due to delay in trial.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant: Arrested on 30th September 2008, trial not held for 18 months due to lapses of State, right to speedy trial violated.
CBI: Lapses are attributable to State police/jail authorities, not CBI; applicant cannot get benefit of lapses of State Government.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is a fundamental right. Delay in trial caused by the State, whether through the prosecuting agency or other authorities, violates this right. The accused is entitled to bail when the delay is attributable to the State and the trial has not commenced even after 18 months of arrest.
Judgment Excerpts
The short question that arises for consideration in this matter is whether the constitutional right of a fair and expeditious trial on the applicant has been violated entitling him to be released on bail.
Article 21 confers a right of a speedy trial. That right is not affected whether the prosecuting agency responsible for prosecution is Union or the State Government. Both must act in coordination with each other to ensure that the constitutional right of an accused for speedy trial is not violated.
Procedural History
The applicant was arrested on 30th September 2008. The trial had not commenced and charges had not been framed by March 2010. The court called for a report from the District & Sessions Judge on 8th February 2010, which was submitted on 23rd February 2010, attributing delays to various causes. The court then heard the application and granted bail on 9th March 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 366A, 372, 373
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956: 3, 4, 5, 6
- Constitution of India: Article 21
