1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

M.A. NO.267 OF 2017 IN SLP (CRL.) NO.657 OF 2017

DILAWAR …Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana & Anr. …Respondents

O R D E R  

1. This  application  has  been filed  by CBI  in  a  disposed of

matter for modification of order of this Court dated 31st January,

2017.

2, FIR No.118 dated 27th February, 2016 was registered with

the Police Station, Urban Estate, Rohtak  alleging mob violence

in  ‘jat  agitation’.   The  petitioner  was  one  of  the  accused

arrested on 20th April, 2016 and was said to be in custody since

then.  The state police,  after completing the investigation, filed

chargesheet on 27th May, 2016 before the Court.  However, the

investigation was thereafter  transferred,   on 30th September,

2016,  to  the  CBI  along  with  several  other  cases.   Court

proceedings were also transferred from regular courts to the

CBI Court at Panchkula.  The petitioner applied for bail before

2

the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak which was dismissed on

12th July, 2016.  Though some of the co-accused were granted

bail  by the High Court,  bail  application of the petitioner was

dismissed by the High Court on 2nd December, 2016.  The High

Court observed that prima facie the petitioner appeared to be

the  leader  of  the  mob  which  indulged  in  arson,  loot  and

mischief of burning of the house of a Cabinet Minister.  When

the  matter  came  up  before  this  Court  against  the  order

declining bail by the High Court, this Court while not granting

bail  directed  that  the  trial  be  concluded  as  far  as  possible

within six months.

3. In  the  present  application  it  is  stated  that  CBI  is

conducting  investigation  and  has  taken  over  only  on  6th

October,  2016.   There  is  voluminous  task  which  is  time

consuming.  Thus, trial cannot commence unless report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed by the CBI which will take long time.

4. From the above narration of facts, it is clear that even if

CBI commenced investigation on 6th October, 2016, one and a

half years have already gone by. There is no indication as to

what proceedings have been taken by the CBI so far and why

more time will  be required and how much more time will  be

required.  No investigating agency can take unduly long time in

3

completing investigation.   Speedy investigation is  recognized

as a part of fundamental right of fair procedure under Article 21

of the Constitution.

5. Accordingly, when the matter came up for hearing on the

last date, learned ASG sought time to assist the Court as to

whether there should be timelines for completing investigation.

In  the  present  case,  since  accused has  been in  custody  for

more than two years and investigation is pending with the CBI

for more than one and a half years, we are of the view that CBI

must  complete  investigation  at  the  most  within  next  two

months so that trial can commence latest by July 10, 2018 and

concluded by the end of the year.  Since order declining bail

was passed on 30th January, 2017 and more than one year has

gone by, it will be open to the petitioner, if he is still in custody,

to move a bail application before the trial court in accordance

with  law.  This  application  will  stand  disposed  of  accordingly

except for consideration of the issue indicated hereafter.

6. We  have  come  across  number  of  cases  where

investigations remain pending for unduly long time which is not

conducive to administration of criminal justice. There is, thus,

clear  need for  timelines  for  completing investigation and for

having  in-house  oversight  mechanism wherein  accountability

4

for adhering to laid down timelines can  be fixed at a different

levels in the hierarchy.   

7. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions of this Court

articulating  the  mandate  of  the  Constitution  that  there  is

implicit  right  under  Article  21 for  speedy trial  which  in  turn

encompasses  speedy investigation,  inquiry,   appeal,  revision

and retrial.  To determine whether undue delay has occurred,

one must have regard to nature of offence, number of accused

and  witnesses,  workload  of  the  court  and  the  investigating

agency, systemic  delays.  Inordinate delay may be taken as

presumptive proof of prejudice particularly when accused is in

custody  so  that  prosecution  does  not  become  persecution.

Court  has  to  balance  and  weigh  several  relevant  factors.

Though  it  is  neither  advisable  nor  feasible  to  prescribe  any

mandatory outer time limit  and the court may only examine

effect of delay in every individual case on the anvil of Article 21

of  the  Constitution,  there  is  certainly  a  need  for  in-house

mechanism  to  ensure  that  there  is  no  undue  delay  in

completing investigation.   This  obligation flows from the law

laid down by this Court  inter-alia in Maneka Gandhi versus

Union  of  India1,  Hussainara  Khatoon  (I)  versus  Home

1  (1978) 1 SCC 248

5

Secy.,  State  of  Bihar2,  Abdul  Rehman  Antulay  versus

R.S.  Nayak3 and  P.  Ramachandra  Rao  versus  State  of

Karnataka4.

8. There  is  undoubted  need  for  a  mechanism  to   take

remedial steps if there is undue delay  in investigation. Section

57 Cr.P.C. puts a bar on detention by a police officer beyond  24

hours excepting time necessary for the journey from the place

of  arrest  to  the  Magistrate’s  court.   Section  167(1)  Cr.P.C.

provides that where investigation cannot be completed within

24  hours,  the  accused  has  to  be  produced  before  the

Magistrate  and  further  detention  of  the  accused  has  to  be

authorized  by  the  Magistrate.   It  is  well  established  that

authorization for such detention has to be given having regard

to  the  progress  in  investigation.   Even  a  Magistrate  cannot

authorise  detention  in  police  custody  beyond  15 days.  After

judicial  custody  for  more  than  90  days  in  serious  cases

stipulated  therein  and  60  days  in  other  cases,   there  is  a

provision  for  mandatory  default  bail  requirement  if  there  is

delay  in  investigation  beyond the  said  period.   In  summons

case, if investigation is not concluded within six months, the

2  (1980) 1 SCC 81 3  (1992) 1 SCC 225 4  (2002) 4 SCC 578

6

same  has  to  be  stopped  unless  continuation  is  found

necessary5.    However,  there  is  no  express  outer  limit  for

investigation  in  other  cases  but  delay  in  investigation  may

affect reasonableness of procedure specially when a person is

in custody and is unable to furnish bail.  Hence the need to lay

down  timelines for completing investigation with a view to give

effect to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution.  This

aspect has also been discussed in the Law Commission’s Report

including  the  14th report  (1958)  and  154th Report  (1996)  as

noticed by this Court6.

9. In view of the above, we implead Union of India as a party.

We have asked learned ASG to represent the Union of India.

We direct the Ministry of Home Affairs to have inter action on

the subject with all the Central and State investigating agencies

on or before May 31, 2018 either on video conferencing or in

person.  The  points  emerging  from  the  inter  action  may  be

recorded  and  examined  by  an  appropriate  committee  which

may constituted for the purpose.  The said committee may give

its report latest by June 30, 2018. We direct the MHA to place

on  record  among  other  data,  the  figures  of  all  pending

investigations  beyond one year  and action plan to complete 5  167(5) Cr.P.C. 6 Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam  (2017) 15 SCC 67,  paras 30 and 31.

7

them in a proposed time frame. With regard to State agencies

also such information may be collected and furnished by the

MHA.

Put  up  the  matter  for  further  consideration  on  3rd July,

2018.

……………………………….J. ( Adarsh Kumar Goel )

……………………………….J. ( Indu Malhotra )

New Delhi; May 01,  2018.