According to the third proviso to Section 497 CrPC a court shall release the accused on bail in an offence punishable with death if he has been detained for a continuous period exceeding two years, unless the delay in the trial has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person on his behalf or the conditions mentioned in the fourth proviso are attracted, which is not so in the present case. In our view the statutory right to be released on bail under the third proviso to Section 497 CrPC is not merely a statutory right but also stands firmly on constitutional guarantees under Article 4, 9 and 10A of the Constitution. Under the said Articles the accused, like any other citizen enjoys the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law; the accused cannot be deprived of liberty, except in accordance with law; and in determination of any criminal charge against him the accused shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process. These basket of rights are available to an accused who enjoys a presumption of innocence in his favour and understandably cannot be subjected to an indefinite pre-trial detention and therefore cannot be denied bail under the third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C unless there is convincing material that the delay has been occasioned by the act or omission of the accused himself or if his case falls under any of the exceptions under the fourth proviso to section 497 CrPC.
For an accused to be denied statutory bail, it must be demonstrated that his act or omission, was intentionally aimed at prolonging the trial. It must show a deliberate pattern of seeking adjournments without valid reasons during key hearings such as the examination or cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Mere counting the number of adjournment requests alone is not enough to justify withholding bail. The application of the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C when interpreted in the light of Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution, broadens and enhances the rights of an accused who is presumed innocent during trial. The prosecution must present clear evidence that the accused or his counsel was actively trying to delay the trial through unnecessary adjournments or irrelevant applications, in order to justify denying bail. As already held by this Court, the act or omission on the part of the accused to delay of the timely conclusion of the trial must be an outcome of a concerted and consistent effort of the accused orchestrated to delay the trial.
While the High Court enjoys the authority to order stay or suspend the proceedings in a criminal trial, in a deserving case, it is equally important that such an exercise of authority must be carried out with caution and circumspection, ensuring expeditious disposal of the case after the grant of injunctive relief. High Court should not lose sight of the case where it has exercised its extraordinary power of staying or suspending the proceeding of a criminal trial but should make it a point of finally disposing of such proceedings as early as possible. Public interest necessitates that the administration of justice is improved for sustaining the faith of a common man in rule of law and justice delivery system, which are closely and inextricably linked.
Crl.P.894-L/2023
Rohan Ahmad v. The State, etc
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
15-01-2024
0 Comments