1979 (4) TMI 171 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court orders prompt release of detainees on own bonds, stresses quick case disposal

The Supreme Court addressed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus concerning alleged illegal detention, directing the release of certain petitioners on ... - Issues:1. Petition for writ of habeas corpus due to alleged illegal detention.2. Delay in trials and investigations leading to prolonged detention.3. Compliance with provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.4. Release of under-trial prisoners and expeditious disposal of cases.Analysis:The Supreme Court heard a petition for a writ of habeas corpus concerning the alleged illegal detention of individuals under the guise of the judicial process. The Court noted that petitioners 3 and 4 should be released on their own bonds, subject to certain conditions, as directed by the trial court. Regarding petitioner 1, the State affirmed in an affidavit that no such person was in custody, and the State was directed to ensure that no one was detained except through due process of law.The Court highlighted the issue of prolonged detention without trials commencing, emphasizing the breakdown of criminal justice when expeditious trials are not pursued. Sections 167, 209, and 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code stress the importance of prompt case disposal, including investigations and trials. The Court expressed strong disapproval of the significant delays in investigations, stating that such actions violated human rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly under Article 21. Despite refraining from immediate orders, the Court directed the State to release individuals detained for over six months without trials or charge sheets, except in cases involving specific offenses.Furthermore, the Court instructed the State to complete investigations within two months for cases without charge sheets and mandated the Sessions Court to dispose of cases with charge sheets within six months. The State was required to report back to the Court after six months. The Court criticized the State for lengthy investigations, highlighting cases where individuals had been in custody for up to five years, urging the government to take action to prevent the silent suffering of indigent accused persons. The Court emphasized compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the mass release of individuals in line with the provisions of the Constitution and the Code.In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition with the aforementioned observations and directions, emphasizing the need for the government to uphold the rule of law and ensure the timely release and fair treatment of accused persons in custody.