Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.509 OF 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 4437 of 2016)

Hussain and Anr. …Appellants  

Versus

Union of India …Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.511 OF 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 348 of 2017)

Aasu …Appellant  

Versus

State of Rajasthan …Respondent

 J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

I 1. Leave granted. Grievance in these appeals is against denial

of  bail  pending  trial/appeal  where  appellants  have  been  in

custody for a long period.   

2. In the first case, the appellants have been in the custody

since 4th August, 2013 on the allegation of having committed

1

Page 2

offence  under  Section  21(c)  of  the  Narcotics  Drugs  and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act).  Their bail

application, pending trial, has been dismissed.  In the second

case, the appellant is in custody since 11th January, 2009.  He

has been convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC

and  sentenced  to  undergo  life  imprisonment.   His  bail

application has been dismissed by  the High Court pending

appeal.  The appellants contend that, having regard to the long

period of custody, they are entitled to bail as speedy trial is

their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. To consider the question as to the circumstances in which

bail  can  be  granted  on  the  ground  of  delayed  proceedings

when a person is in custody, notice was also issued to learned

Attorney General and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate

was appointed Amicus Curiae.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, the learned

amicus and the learned Additional Solicitor General.

5. During  the  hearing  reference  has  been  made  to  the

decisions of this Court dealing with the issue and reference

2

Page 3

has also been made to Section 436A Cr.P.C. which provides for

grant of bail when a person has undergone detention upto one

half of maximum prescribed imprisonment.  It was submitted

that the said provision applies only during trial and the first

case  is  not  covered  by  the  said  provision  as  the  appellant

therein has not  undergone the requisite detention period to

claim bail under the said provision.

6. With regard to grant of bail, pending appeal, reference has

been made to decisions of this Court in  Akhtari Bi (Smt.)  v.

State of M.P.1 and Surinder Singh  alias  Shingara Singh

v.  State of Punjab2 which provides that if the appeal is not

heard for 5 years, excluding the delay for which the accused

himself is responsible, bail should normally be granted.  The

second  case  is  not  covered  by  the  said  judgment  as  the

pending appeal in the High Court is of the year 2013.

7. In Abdul Rehman Antulay and ors. v.  R.S. Nayak and

anr.3 while holding that speedy trial at all  stages is part of

right under Article 21, it was held that if there is violation of

1 (2001) 4 SCC 355 2 (2005) 7 SCC 387 3 (1992) 1 SCC 225 – Para 86

3

Page 4

right of speedy trial, instead of quashing the proceedings, a

higher court can direct conclusion of proceedings in a fixed

time.  In the light of these principles, the present appeals can

be disposed of by directing that the pending trial in the first

case and the appeal in the second case may be disposed of

within six months.  We order accordingly and dispose of the

matters to the extent of grievance in the two cases.

II

8. However,  since the issue is arising frequently,  inspite  of

earlier  directions  of  this  Court,  further  consideration  has

become necessary in the interest of administration of justice

and for enforcement of fundamental right under Article 21.  

9. As already noticed, speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair

and  just  procedure  guaranteed  under  Article  21.   This

constitutional  right  cannot  be  denied  even  on  the  plea  of

non-availability of financial resources.  The court is entitled to

issue  directions  to  augment  and  strengthen  investigating

machinery,  setting-up  of  new  courts,  building  new  court

houses,  providing  more  staff  and  equipment  to  the  courts,

appointment of additional judges and other measures as are

4

Page 5

necessary for speedy trial4.

10.  Directions given by this Court in  Hussainara Khatoon

(supra) to this effect were left to be implemented by the High

Courts5 are as follows:

“2. Since  this  Court  has  already laid  down the  guidelines  by orders  passed  from  time  to  time  in  this  writ  petition  and  in subsequent orders passed in different cases since then, we do not  consider it  necessary to restate the guidelines periodically because  the  enforcement  of  the  guidelines  by  the subordinate courts functioning in different States should now be the responsibility of the different High Courts to which  they  are  subordinate.  General  orders  for  release  of undertrials  without  reference  to  specific  fact-situations  in different cases may prove to be hazardous. While there can be no doubt that undertrial  prisoners should not  languish in jails on account  of  refusal  to  enlarge  them  on  bail  for  want  of  their capacity  to  furnish  bail  with  monetary  obligations,  these  are matters  which  have  to  be  dealt  with  on  case-to-case  basis keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by this Court in the orders passed in this writ petition and in subsequent cases from time to time. Sympathy for the undertrials who are in jail for long terms on account of the pendency of cases has to be balanced having regard to the impact of crime, more particularly, serious crime, on society and these considerations have to be weighed having regard to the fact-situations in pending cases. While there can be no doubt that trials of those accused of crimes should be disposed  of  as  early  as  possible,  general  orders  in  regard  to judge strength of  subordinate judiciary  in each State must  be attended to, and its functioning overseen, by the High Court of the State concerned. We share the sympathetic  concern of  the learned counsel  for  the  petitioners  that  undertrials  should  not languish  in  jails  for  long  spells  merely  on  account  of  their inability to meet monetary obligations. We are, however, of the view that such monitoring can be done more effectively by the High Courts since it would be easy for that Court to collect and collate the statistical information in that behalf, apply the broad guidelines  already  issued  and  deal  with  the  situation  as  it emerges from the status reports presented to it. The role of the High Court is to ensure that the guidelines issued by this Court are implemented in letter and spirit. We think it would suffice if  we  request  the  Chief  Justices  of  the  High  Courts  to

4 Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV)   v.  Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna – (1980) 1 SCC 98  – para 10. 5 Hussainara Khatoon and ors. (VII) etc.  v.  Home Secretary, Bihar and ors. etc. –(1995) 5 SCC  326 – para 2

5

Page 6

undertake a review of such cases in their States and give appropriate directions where needed to ensure proper and effective  implementation  of  the  guidelines.  Instead  of repeating the general directions already issued, it would be  sufficient  to  remind  the  High  Courts  to  ensure expeditious disposal of cases. …”

(emphasis added)

11.   Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy

trial  is  not  consistent  with  Article  21.  While  deprivation  of

personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period

of  deprivation  pending  trial/appeal  cannot  be  unduly  long.

This Court has held that while a person in custody for a grave

offence may not be released if trial is delayed, trial has to be

expedited or bail has to be granted in such cases6.

12.  Timely delivery of justice is a part of human rights.  Denial

of  speedy  justice  is  a  threat  to  public  confidence  in  the

administration of  justice.   Directions  of  this  Court  in  Noor

Mohammed  v.  Jethanand and anr.7 are as follows:

“ 34. … … …Therefore, we request the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Rajasthan as well as the other learned Chief Justices to conceive and adopt a mechanism, regard being had to the priority of cases, to avoid such inordinate delays in matters which can really be dealt with in an expeditious manner. Putting a  step  forward  is  a  step  towards  the  destination.  A  sensible individual  inspiration  and  a  committed  collective  endeavour would indubitably help in this regard. Neither less, nor more.”

6  Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing undertrial prisoners   v.  Union of India and  ors. – (1994) 6 SCC 731 – para 15 7 (2013)5 SCC 202

6

Page 7

13.  In  Thana Singh  v.  Central Bureau of Narcotics8 this

Court  directed that  liberal  adjournments  must  be  avoided and

witnesses once produced must be examined on consecutive dates.

Directions  were  also  issued  for  setting  up  of  sufficient

laboratories,  for  disposal  of  seized  narcotics  drugs  and  for

providing charge-sheets and other documents in electronic form

in addition to hard copies of same to avoid delay.

14. In Akhtari Bi (supra) this Court observed as under:

“5. … … …it is incumbent upon the High Courts to find ways and means by taking steps to ensure the disposal of criminal appeals,  particularly  such appeals  where  the  accused  are  in jails, that the matters are disposed of within the specified period not exceeding 5 years in any case. Regular Benches to deal with the criminal cases can be set up where such appeals be listed for final disposal. We feel that if an appeal is not disposed of within  the  aforesaid  period  of  5  years,  for  no  fault  of  the convicts,  such  convicts  may  be  released  on  bail  on  such conditions as may be deemed fit  and proper by the court.  In computing the period of 5 years, the delay for any period, which is  requisite  in  preparation  of  the  record  and  the  delay attributable to the convict or his counsel can be deducted. There may be cases where even after the lapse of 5 years the convicts may, under the special circumstances of the case, be held not entitled  to  bail  pending  the  disposal  of  the  appeals  filed  by them.  We request the Chief Justices of  the High Courts, where the criminal  cases  are pending for  more than 5 years to take immediate effective steps for their disposal by  constituting  regular  and  special  Benches  for  that purpose.”

15. Again in Imtiyaz Ahmad   v.   State of Uttar Pradesh and

Ors.9 it  was observed that  long delay has the effect  of  blatant

8  (2013) 2 SCC 590 9 (2012) 2 SCC 688

7

Page 8

violation of rule of law and adverse impact on access to justice

which is a fundamental right.  Denial of this right undermines

public  confidence in  justice  delivery.   These observations have

been reiterated in recent Constitution Bench judgment in  Anita

Kushwaha etc. etc.  v.  Pushap Sudan etc. etc.10.  In the said

judgment  it  was  noticed  that  providing  effective  adjudicatory

mechanism, reasonably accessible and speedy, was part of access

to justice.  

16. In  Bhim Singh V. Union of India11,  it  was observed that

central government must take steps in consultation with the state

governments in fast tracking all types of criminal cases so that

criminal justice is delivered timely and expeditiously. In the same

case, in a further order12 it was noted that more than 50% of the

prisoners  in  various  jails  are  undertrial  prisoners.  In  spite  of

incorporation  of  Section  436A  in  Cr.PC.  undertrial  prisoners

continue to remain in prisons in violation of the mandate of the

said  section.  Accordingly,  this  court  directed  jurisdictional

Magistrate/Chief Judicial  Magistrate/Session judge to hold one

sitting in a week in each jail/prison for 2 months for effective

10  (2016) 8 SCC 509 –para(s) 31-36 11  (2015) 13 SCC 603 12  (2015) 13 SCC 605

8

Page 9

implementation  of  Section  436A.  Again  in  Re:  Inhuman

Conditions  in  1382  Prisons13 reference  was  made  to  the

advisory  issued  by  Ministry  of  Home  Affairs  to  all  States  for

implementation of Section 436A, Cr.PC. stipulating constitution

of a review committee in every district under the chairmanship of

the District Judge. It was noted that 67% of the prisoners in the

jails were undertrials prisoners.  

III

17. In  Imtiyaz  Ahmad  (supra) this  Court  noted  that  serious

cases  involving  murder,  rape,  kidnapping  and  dacoiting  were

pending for long period.  In some cases proceedings are delayed

on account of stay orders.  Out of the said cases, in 9 per cent

cases stay was operating for more than 20 years, in 21 per cent

stay was operating for more than 10 years.  Having regard to the

situation noticed in the judgment, this Court directed the High

Courts  to  dispose  of  cases  in  which  proceedings  were  stayed

preferably within six months from the date of stay orders.  The

Law  Commission  was  directed  to  make  recommendation  for

measures to be adopted by way of creation of additional courts

and  the  like  matters.  The  Law  Commission  made  its

13  (2016) 3 SCC 700

9

Page 10

recommendations in its 245th Report which was examined by the

National  Court  Management  Systems  Committee  (NCMSC)  to

determine additional number of courts required.  The said report

was thereafter  considered by this  Court  in judgment dated 2nd

January,  2017 in  Imtiyaz Ahmad  v.   State of U.P. & Ors.

[Criminal Appeal No. 254-262 of 2012]. After noticing the stand of

the  Ministry  of  Law and Justice  on  the  subject  of  creation  of

additional posts, this Court also noted the recommendations of

the 14th Finance Commission whereby additional fiscal allocation

was provided.  In that context, the Prime Minister’s letter to the

Chief Ministers calling upon them to allocate funds in the State

Budgets was also referred to.  Further follow up letter of the Law

Minister  and  Resolution  of  Chief  Justices’  Conference  held  in

April, 2016 were also referred to.  Thereafter, this Court issued

directions  for  computing  the  required  judge  strength  of  the

district judiciary and also directed the State Governments to take

steps for enhancing the judge strength accordingly. The directions

are as follows:

“22. Having regard to the above background, we now proceed to formulate our directions in the following terms :  

i)  Until  NCMSC formulates a scientific  method for determining the basis for computing the required judge strength of the district

10

Page 11

judiciary, the judge strength shall be computed for each state, in accordance  with  the  interim  approach  indicated  in  the  note submitted by the Chairperson, NCMSC;  

ii) NCMSC is requested to endeavour the submission of its final report by 31 December 2017;  

iii) A copy of the interim report submitted by the Chairperson, NCMSC shall be forwarded by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to the Chief Justices of all  the High Courts and Chief Secretaries of all states within one month so as to enable them to take follow-up action to determine the required judge strength of  the  district  judiciary  based  on  the  NCMSC  interim  report, subject to what has been stated in this judgment;  

iv)  The state governments shall  take up with the High Courts concerned  the  task  of  implementing  the  interim  report  of  the Chairperson, NCMSC (subject to what has been observed above) and take necessary decisions within a period of three months from today for enhancing the required judge strength of  each state judiciary accordingly;  v) The state governments shall cooperate in all respects with the High  Courts  in  terms  of  the  resolutions  passed  in  the  joint conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers in April 2016 with a view to ensuring expeditious disbursal of funds to the state  judiciaries  in  terms  of  the  devolution  made  under  the auspices of the Fourteenth Finance Commission;  

vi) The High Courts shall take up the issue of creating additional infrastructure  required  for  meeting  the  existing  sanctioned strength of their state judiciaries and the enhanced strength in terms of the interim recommendation of NCMSC;  

vii)  The  final  report  submitted by  NCMSC may be  placed for consideration  before  the  Conference  of  Chief  Justices.  The directions  in  (i)  above  shall  then  be  subject  to  the  ultimate decision that is taken on receipt of the final report; and  

viii)  A  copy  of  this  order  shall  be  made  available  to  the Registrars  General  of  each  High  Court  and  to  all  Chief Secretaries of the States for appropriate action.”

The said matter now stands adjourned to July, 2017.

18. During  Joint  Conference  of  Chief  Ministers  of  States  and

11

Page 12

Chief Justices of High Courts held in April, 2015, a decision was

taken that all High Courts will establish Arrears Committees and

prepare a plan to clear backlog of cases pending for more than 5

years.  Such Committees have reportedly been established.  In

Chief Justices’ Conference held in April, 2016 under Item No. 8

inter alia the following resolution was passed:

“ [8] DELAY AND ARREARS COMMITTEE:

xxx xxx xxx

Resolved that

(i) all High Courts shall assign top most priority for disposal of cases which are pending for more than five years;

(ii) High Courts where arrears of cases pending for more than five years are concentrated shall facilitate their disposal in mission mode;

(iii)  High  Courts  shall  progressively  thereafter  set  a  target  of disposing of cases pending for more than four years;

(iv) while prioritizing the disposal of cases pending in the district courts  for  more  than  five  years,  additional  incentives  for  the Judges of the district judiciary be considered where feasible; and

(v)  efforts  be  made  for  strengthening  case-flow  management rules.”

19. The position of five year old cases continues to be alarming

in many States.   Total number of more than five year old cases in

subordinate  courts  at  the  end  of  the  year  2015  is  said  to  be

43,19,693 as noted in para 9 of the judgment of this Court dated

12

Page 13

2nd January, 2017 in Imtiyaz Ahmad  v.  State of U.P. & Ors.

[Criminal  Appeal  No.  254-262 of  2012].  Number  of  undertrials

detained for more than five years at the end of the year 2015 is

said to be 3599.14  Number of appeals pending in High Courts

where detention period is beyond five years may be still higher.

20. It appears that annual action plans have been prepared by

some High Courts with reference to the subject of discussion in

the Chief Justices’ Conference.  Reference to action plan of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court for the year 2011-201215 shows

that undertrials who were in custody for more than two years as

on 1st April, 2011 in Session Trial cases and those in custody for

more than six months in Magisterial Trial cases were targeted for

disposal, apart from five year old cases and other priority cases.

Similar  targets  were  fixed  for  subsequent  years  and  result

reflected in the pendency figures shows improvement in disposal

of five year old cases and cases of undertrials in custody beyond

two years in Session Trial cases and six months in Magisterial

Trial cases in subordinate courts in the jurisdiction of Punjab &

14   Prison Statistics India-2015 15 Circular  dated  2.4.2011  from Registrar  Rules,  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court.   As  per resolution of Full  Court meeting dated 29.3.2011, the plan was to be monitored every three months and performance of judicial officers was to be reflected in ACRs.

13

Page 14

Haryana  High  Court.16  Reportedly,  success  is  on  account  of

monitoring  inter  alia  by  holding  quarterly  meetings  of  District

Judges  with  Senior  High  Court  Judges  as  well  as  constant

monitoring  by  concerned  Administrative  Judges17.  Presumably,

there  is  similar  improvement  as  a  result  of  planned  efforts

elsewhere. In view of successful implementation of plan to dispose

of cases of undertrials in custody in two years in Session Trial

cases and six months in Magisterial  trials,  we do not  see any

reason why this target should not be set uniformly.   The same

need  to  be  regularly  monitored  and  reflected  in  performance

appraisals of concerned judicial officers.  Handicaps pointed out

can be tackled at appropriate level.  Accordingly, we are of the

view that plan of each High Court should include achieving the

said  target  and  not  the  target  of  five  years  for  undertrials  in

custody.  Of course, if such cases can be disposed of earlier, it

may be still better.  Plans can be revised as per local conditions.

We also feel delay in disposal of bail applications and cases where

trials are stayed are priority areas for monitoring.  Timeline for

disposal of bail applications ought to be fixed by the High Court.

16  Report of the monitoring Committee is that targets were achieved to the extent of 90%, 98110 old cases were disposed of out of 117880 targeted. 17 See the information on website of Punjab and Haryana High Court under the caption “Action  Plans”

14

Page 15

As far as possible, bail applications in subordinate courts should

ordinarily be decided within one week and in High Courts within

two-three weeks.  Posting of  suitable officers in key leadership

positions of Session Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates may

perhaps  go  a  long  way  in  dealing  with  the  situation.  Non

performers/dead  wood  must  be  weeded  out  as  per  rules,  as

public interest is above individual interest.

21. Another suggestion which cropped up during the hearing of

the present case relates to remedying the situation of  delay in

trials  on  account  of  absconding  of  one  or  the  other  accused

during the trial.  In this regard our attention has been drawn to

an  amendment  in  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1898 of

Bangladesh by way of adding Section 339B to the following effect:

“Trial in absentia [339B.  (1)  Where  after  the  compliance  with  the requirements of section 87 and section 88, the Court has reason to believe that an accused person has absconded or concealing  himself  so  that  he  cannot  be  arrested  and produced for  trial  and there is  no immediate prospect  of arresting him, the Court taking cognizance of the offence complained  of  shall,  by  order published  in  at  least  two national  daily  Bengali  Newspapers  having  wide circulation],  

direct such person to appear before it within such period as may be specified in the order, and if such person fails to comply with such direction, he shall be tried in his absence.

(2) Where in a case after the production or appearance of

15

Page 16

an accused  before  the  Court  or  his  release  on  bail,  the accused person absconds or fails to appear, the procedure as laid  down in  sub-section  (1)  shall  not  apply  and the Court  competent  to  try  such  person  for  the  offence complained of shall, recording its decision so to do, try such person in his absence.”

(emphasis added)

22. It is for the concerned authority to take cognizance of the

above amendment which may considerably reduce delay in cases

where one or the other accused absconds during the trial.  

23. Learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned Additional Solicitor

General  have  suggested  that  monitoring  by  all  High  Courts  is

necessary to ensure minimizing adjournments at all levels, taking

steps to remove obstacles in speedy trials including setting up of

adequate number of  laboratories,  use of  Video Conferencing to

examine  scientific  experts  or  otherwise,  appointment  of  public

prosecutors,  compliance  of  Section  207/208  Cr.P.C.  by

scanning/digitizing police reports, introduce system for electronic

service of  summons (wherever  necessary),  issuing timelines for

disposal of bail matters at all levels. It has also been suggested

that  suitable  amendments  ought  to  be  made  in  the  Code  of

Criminal Procedure for permitting tendering evidence of medical

witnesses on the pattern of Section 293 Cr.P.C.  While we have

16

Page 17

discussed some of the issues germane to the subject of speedy

trials, in view of directions already issued by this Court, issuance

of further directions and monitoring of directions already issued

is left to the concerned High Courts.   

24. In view of the above, we do consider it necessary to direct

that steps be taken forthwith by all concerned to effectuate the

mandate of the fundamental right under Article 21 especially with

regard to  persons in  custody in  view of  the  directions already

issued by this Court.  It is desirable that each High Court frames

its annual action plan fixing a tentative time limit for subordinate

courts for deciding criminal trials of persons in custody and other

long  pending  cases  and  monitors  implementation  of  such

timelines  periodically.  This  may  perhaps  obviate  the  need  for

seeking directions in individual cases from this Court.  We also

feel that it is desirable for Chief Justices of all the High Courts to

take other steps consistent with the directions already issued by

this Court for expeditious disposal of criminal appeals pending in

High  Courts  where  persons  are  in  custody  by  fixing  priority

having regard to the time period of detention.  We also reiterate

the  directions  for  setting  up  of  adequate  number  of  forensic

17

Page 18

laboratories at all levels.  Specification of some of these issues is

in  addition  to  implementation  of  other  steps  including  timely

investigation,  timely  serving  of  summons  on  witnesses  and

accused, timely filing of charge-sheets and furnishing of copies of

charge-sheets  to  the  accused.   These  aspects  need  constant

monitoring by High Courts.   

25. One  other  aspect  pointed  out  is  the  obstruction  of  Court

proceedings by uncalled for strikes/abstaining of work by lawyers

or frequent suspension of court work after condolence references.

In view of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal

versus Union of India18,  such suspension of work or strikes are

clearly illegal and it is high time that the legal fraternity realizes

its  duty  to  the  society  which  is  the  foremost.   Condolence

references can be once in while periodically say once in two/three

months and not frequently.  Hardship faced by witnesses if their

evidence is not recorded on the day they are summoned or impact

of delay on undertrials  in custody on account of such avoidable

interruptions of court proceedings is a matter of concern for any

responsible body of professionals and they must take appropriate

steps.   In  any  case,  this  needs  attention  of  all  concerned

18 (2003) 2 SCC 45

18

Page 19

authorities  –  the  Central  Government/State  Governments/Bar

Councils/Bar Associations as well as the High Courts and ways

and  means  ought  to  be  found  out  to  tackle  this  menace.

Consistent  with  the  above  judgment,  the  High  Courts  must

monitor this aspect strictly and take stringent measures as may

be required in the interests of administration of justice.

26. Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other

services. They are missions for serving the society.  The mission is

not achieved if the litigant who is waiting in the queue does not

get his turn for a long time.  Chief Justices and Chief Ministers

have resolved that all cases must be disposed of within five years

which  by  any  standard  is  quite  a  long  time  for  a  case  to  be

decided in  the first  court.   Decision of  cases  of  undertrials  in

custody is one of the priority areas.  There are obstructions at

every  level  in  enforcement  of  right  of  speedy  trial  –  vested

interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings.

Lack of infrastructure is another handicap.  Inspite of all odds,

determined efforts are required at every level for success of the

mission.   Ways and means have to  be  found out  by constant

thinking and monitoring.  Presiding Officer of a court cannot rest

19

Page 20

in  the  state  of  helplessness.  This  is  the  constitutional

responsibility of the State to provide necessary infrastructure and

of  the  High  Courts  to  monitor  the  functioning  of  subordinate

courts to ensure timely disposal of cases.  The first step in this

direction is preparation of an appropriate action plan at the level

of the High Court and thereafter at the level of each and every

individual judicial officer.  Implementation of the action plan will

require serious efforts and constant monitoring.

27. To sum up:  

(i)  The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts

that –  

(a)   Bail applications be disposed of normally within one

week;  

(b) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be

normally concluded within six months and sessions trials

where  accused  are  in  custody  be  normally  concluded

within two years;

(c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are

five years old by the end of the year;

(d) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with

20

Page 21

the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of

custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if

conviction is recorded such undertrial must be released

on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by

the concerned trial courts from time to time;

(e) The  above  timelines  may  be  the  touchstone  for

assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential

reports. (emphasis added)

(ii)  The  High  Courts  are  requested  to  ensure  that  bail

applications  filed  before  them  are  decided  as  far  as  possible

within  one  month  and criminal  appeals  where  accused are  in

custody for more than five years are concluded at the earliest;

(iii) The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor appropriate

action plans for the subordinate courts;

(iv) The High Courts may monitor steps for speedy investigation

and trials on administrative and judicial side from time to time;

(v) The High Courts may take such stringent measures as may

be found necessary in the light of judgment of this Court in Ex.

Captain Harish Uppal (supra) .  

28. Accordingly, we request the Chief Justices of all High Courts

21

Page 22

to forthwith take appropriate steps consistent with the directions

of  this  Court  in  Hussain  Ara  Khatoon  (1995)  5  SCC  326)

(supra),  Akhtari  Bi  (Smt.)  (supra),  Noor  Mohammed  (supra),

Thana  Singh  (supra),  S.C.  Legal  Aid  Committee   (supra),

Imtiaz Ahmad (supra), Ex. Captain Harish Uppal  (supra) and

Resolution  of  Chief  Justices’  Conference and  observations

hereinabove and to have appropriate monitoring mechanism in

place on the administrative side as well as on the judicial side for

speeding  up  disposal  of  cases  of  undertrials  pending  in

subordinate courts and appeals pending in the High Courts.  

We  place  on  record  our  appreciation  for  the  valuable

assistance  rendered  by  Mr.  Atmaram  N.S.  Nadkarni,  learned

Additional Solicitor General  and Mr. Siddharth Luthra,  learned

Senior Advocate.  

A copy of this order be sent to all the courts.

…………………..…………J.  [Adarsh Kumar Goel]

 …....……………………..J.     [ Uday Umesh Lalit ]

NEW DELHI;   MARCH 9, 2017.  

22