"Courts must act as doctors to save legal or Constitutional rights from demise before they are extinguished": Delhi High Court
While allowing bail to an accused involved in 12 year old bomb blast case, the Delhi High Court expressed concern over the plight of undertrials and the gross negligence of their fundamental rights.
Courts must act as doctors to save legal or Constitutional rights from demise before they are extinguished, the Delhi High Court said.
The long wait for undertrials amid slow justice
The unsettling remark should be taken with a pinch of salt. Numbers tell a story. In the present case, it is a languishing story of wait and agony.
12 Years in jail, 256 witnesses examined with 60 witnesses yet to make an appearance. As the numbers sink in, a brief look at the NCB data from few years ago gives an even murkier picture.
As per data released by National crime bureau, as many as 2,82,076 undertrials were lodged in jails across India. This roughly amounts to 68 percent of the prison population. Out of the 68 percent 10 percent of the prisoners have not seen the light of the day. i.e. a complete trial. The present case pertaining to the 2008 Delhi Bomb blast accused has been languishing at a snail pace. Moreover, it is a case in point to demonstrate the laxity and inefficiency of the judicial and police administration system.
Accused has practically served half of the sentence without knowing his fate
The facts in the present case stand against the accused Mohd Hakim who is believed to be a carrier of cycle ball bearings which were ultimately said to be used in the making of explosive devices. However, lack of speedy trial in this case has made way for another tragedy. The accused has been in custody for 12 years. 12 long years have passed. Each passing year symbolizing a defeat in granting a basic human right— the right to personal liberty.
The case against Hakim has not been proven yet. However, he has already spent a big chunk of his adult life behind bars. And if the argument of giving a capital sentence to the accused is considered in all seriousness, a speedier trial becomes a pressing need in such a scenario. Realistically speaking, the accused seems to have served more than half of the sentence he might eventually face without knowing his fate.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to reiterate the observation made by the Supreme Court in KA. Nazeeb case.
“Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.
Although the prosecution pointed out the heinous nature of the offence, the court while allowing bail to the accused stressed on the substantial time already spent in custody by him.
