Prosecution can’t oppose bail without ensuring prompt trial, rules Punjab and Haryana High Court

Advertisement

Chandigarh, July 28

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the prosecution has no right to oppose the bail plea of an accused on the grounds of seriousness and gravity of the alleged offence if it cannot ensure a prompt trial.

The observation

It must be emphasised that if the prosecution cannot ensure a prompt trial, they have no right to oppose bail to the accused by citing the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences. HC Bench

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution could not be compromised due to delays solely attributable to the prosecution. “This fundamental right is paramount and must be upheld without exception,” the Bench asserted.

The assertions came as Justice Kaul granted bail to an accused in a drugs case, involving commercial quantity of contraband after noticing that the prosecution witnesses (all officials) had failed to appear before the trial court to record their evidence, despite the issuance of bailable warrants to secure their presence. The defence that the trial’s delays were solely attributable to the prosecution’s inability to secure the presence of its witnesses, thus, the petitioner should not be made to languish in custody.

Justice Kaul observed the state counsel had “vehemently” opposed the request for extending the concession of bail to the petitioner as the recovery carried out from the petitioner was classified as commercial.

Justice Kaul observed a perusal of the interim orders produced before the court by the petitioner’s counsel unmistakably revealed that the conclusion of the trial had been significantly delayed due to the lackadaisical conduct of the prosecution witnesses.

Justice Kaul added, the witnesses, for reasons best known to them, had persistently failed to appear before the trial court to record their evidence. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla’s case, the Bench observed bail was granted to an accused on certain terms “overriding the instructions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act because of the long incarceration of the accused.”

“It must be emphasised that if the prosecution cannot ensure a prompt trial, they have no right to oppose bail for the accused by citing the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences. Additionally, the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be compromised due to delays solely attributable to the prosecution,” the Bench added.