NAGPUR: Bombay excessive courtroom’s Nagpur bench has acknowledged that constitutional protections below Article 21 of the Structure — which assure the proper to speedy trial — apply uniformly to all accused, no matter the gravity of the cost. The courtroom’s reiteration of the precept got here whereas granting bail to Dattatray Shejole, accused of kidnapping and raping a seven-year-old lady, citing inordinate delay in trial.
Justice Urmila JoshiPhalke, who presided over the case, emphasised that if the govt. or prosecuting company, together with the judiciary, can not make sure the elementary proper to a speedy trial as mandated by Article 21 of the Structure, they need to not oppose bail pleas merely on grounds of seriousness of the crime. “Article 21 applies no matter the character of the crime,” she asserted.
Dattatray Shejole, a resident of Buldhana, was arrested on Dec 15, 2021 following allegations of kidnapping and raping a seven-year-old lady on Dec 10, 2021. The case was registered below varied IPC sections, together with Secs 366 (kidnapping), 376 (rape), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (legal intimidation), in addition to below the Safety of Youngsters from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Shejole’s counsel, AD Bhate, argued that regardless of the intense expenses his shopper had been detained for almost two years with out substantial progress in trial. The HC had earlier granted liberty to Shejole to file for bail if trial didn’t begin inside six months. Greater than a 12 months had handed since then with no development in trial, prompting the present bail utility.
In her detailed ruling, Justice Joshi-Phalke famous the investigation had been accomplished but the trial had barely moved ahead. She highlighted that delays have been primarily because of the accused not being produced in courtroom on a number of events, which prevented framing of expenses.
“The petitioner has been behind bars since Dec 15, 2021. The licensed copy of the rojnama reveals trial was not commenced merely as a result of the accused was not produced in courtroom and cost was not framed. The particular courtroom and prosecution did n ot make any effort to safe the presence of the accused in courtroom on a number of events,” Justice Joshi-Phalke stated.
The courtroom additionally referenced latest Supreme Court docket judgments, together with the instances of Sheikh Javed Iqbal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, which reiterated that the precise to speedy trial below Article 21 applies universally to all accused, whatever the crime’s severity. The SC additionally clarified that Part 43D(5) of the Illegal Actions (Prevention) Act (UAPA) doesn’t stop constitutional courts from granting bail when there’s a violation of elementary rights.
Whereas acknowledging the intense nature of the crime, the HC dominated that extended incarceration and not using a foreseeable finish to trial is unjust. “Admittedly the crime dedicated is critical, however in view of the observations of the highest courtroom and Article 21, the petitioner can’t be stored behind bars for an indefinite interval,” the choose noticed.
