Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INTRODUCTION:
In November 2007, died on May 18 2013 after he fell sick and fainted near Barabanki
border while being escorted to Lucknow jail after a court hearing. Uttar Pradesh
Government suspended 9 police personnel including Sub Inspector Ram Avadh. In
Aurangabad (Maharashtra) terror suspect Mirza Rizwan Baig committed suicide due
to pressure of interrogation and fear of torture. Torture and deaths are routine in
Indias police stations.
The Tihar jail authorities say he hanged himself, while the relatives of
deceased say he was murdered.
India signed the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) after a gap of 13 years on 14 October
1997, but has not ratified the treaty yet. The Government in India has no political will
to ratify the UNCAT treaty since the political bosses feel that torture in police custody
by police is a tool to take revenge of political opponents. Bill to ratify UN CAT 1984
(United Nations Convention against torture) was drafted in a lackadaisical manner
and it is under consideration of the government at present. Torture was to silence
people and make sure that they did not raise their voice against injustice and remain
docile, observed the jury at a public hearing on all forms of custodial injustice in
custodial institutions in Madurai Tamil Nadu,
Criminal Procedure Code 1973 which is procedural manual for trying criminal
cases in India is archaic, outdated manual if we compare the bail laws bad bail
procedure in Australia, United Kingdom or United States of America. Ample
literature is available on the internet web sites .Indian criminal procedure has totally
wiped out presumption of innocence from the bail procedure. The presumption of
guilt is the main plank of Indias Criminal Procedure law, Indian law on bail is
Section 167 of Criminal procedure Code. This code, as has been said above, presumes
all people arrested by police as hardened criminals. There is provision of up to 14
days of police custody. Most often the accused person does not survive the beating
and other third degree methods of eliciting admission from the accused and many die
during interrogation. If the accused dies in custody a false scene of suicide is
immediately created. Every day there is at least one news item in the newspaper about
some police station where the relatives of the dead are not taking the dead body and
are squatting before the police station.
Almost three decades after the Supreme Court declared the right to speedy
trial as a fundamental right, is implicit in the wide area and the content of Article 21
of the Constitution, the situation with regard to pending cases has in fact failed instead
of the sign of improvement. It does not mean that the Indian courts are not making the
necessary efforts to improve the situation. But, in spite of the best efforts on the part
of the justice system, there is no increase in the number of open cases or the number
of years for which a thing is, is still on; on the other hand, there has been a continuing
trend toward the further drop/fall over the years.
The main culprit is the quantity, i.e., the grossly insufficient number of judges
at all levels to match the ever-growing number of cases which keep coming before the
courts for their disposal year after year while the existing ones never appear to be
getting reduced, notwithstanding the fact that the annual disposal rate of cases by
courts has improved over the years as comparable to the annual number of fresh cases
coming to courts.
The blame lies mostly on the executive, the Governments at the Central and
State levels, for not setting up sufficient number of courts citing the reason of lack of
funds mainly. That nothing can be farther from truth would need just one small
example to illustrate. The Government can spare a whopping amount of about Rs.
2,45,000 crore (more than US$ 58.0 billion) on oil subsidies every year, including
explicit and implicit subsidies to the consumers, even if we forget substantial amounts
spent on other subsidies, such as fertilizer subsidy, food subsidy, etc., or on other
avoidable expenditures; but the Government is not able to find a meager amount of
Rs. 1426 crore only (only about US$ 0.3 billion) per year which is what is required to
approximately double the strength of judiciary in India! Even this amount of Rs. 1426
crore per annum, calculated reportedly using the number of additional judges required
as per the estimate of the Chief Justice of India, is necessary only if the salaries of
judges are increased substantially, otherwise at current costs at the time of writing
these words, this amount was calculated only at Rs. 180 crore. To say that the
Government lacks financial resources for such a paltry amount for such an important
task is nothing but in insult to India, one of the largest economies in the world. And,
yet, the Government dithers on setting up new courts. Such being the situation, what
is wrong of one draws the irresistible conclusion that the Government is simply not
interested to have an efficient judiciary, for reasons all too well known?
The unfortunate part of the story, with great respect, is that the Supreme Court
of India, which is otherwise quite eloquent in the field of what is commonly called
judicial activism to ameliorate the miserable conditions of a billion-plus India, and
rightly so, has not done sufficient to compel the Government to improve the judiciary
infrastructure by issuing an appropriate Mandamus and then following it up for strict
compliance thereof, insptie of the fact that many opportunities came before the
Supreme Court when it could and should have done so starting with the Husainara
Khatoon case6 about three decades ago wherein the Supreme Court came quite close
to issuing such directions to improve the judicial infrastructure, but unfortunately, it
failed to live up to the expectations which it had raised itself by elevating the right to
speedy trial to the pedestal of a fundamental right.
Just to give an illustration, in one of several such cases noticed by the author
in his earlier avatar, one particular accused person after his first offence of murder,
came out on bail and committed 3-4 other serious offences, again got arrested and got
bail, and committed another 3- 4serious offences, and in this way, he committed
something like 18 serious offences before ultimately he was convicted in his first
murder case after a prolonged trial after which he was finally sent to jail thereby
putting an end to the series of serious offences being committed by him! The moral of
the story is, if only the trial in his first murder case could have been expeditiously
completed and he had been sent to jail at an early date, the society would definitely
have been saved from his subsequent 17 serious offences. Another big advantage to
the society from speedy trials is the much improved conviction rate. With trials
getting delayed for several years or decades, some witnesses might have died in the
meanwhile, some might have become missing or shifted out to unknown places, some
witnesses might have forgotten the intricate details of the case, some of them might
have lost interest and motivation in the case, some of them might have been won over
by accused over the period of time, some documents might have become missing or
might have been stolen or might have been eaten away by insects or might have been
defaced being no more worthy of use for evidence purposes; and like.
Normally the end result of all these developments due to delayed trial is
nothing but an acquittal even in a case where conviction should otherwise have been
the only possible outcome due to strong evidence. A speedy trial also helps the courts.
A delayed trial is like a vicious circle. Delay in trial gives rise to numerous
miscellaneous applications revision petitions, appeals, SLPs, etc., for the purposes of
Bails, cancellation of Bail, modification of conditions of bail, discharge applications
return of property, etc.
For example, if a trial is delayed by say 10 years and the accused is not bailed
out, one may see a series of several bail applications, revision applications, and a few
odd SLPs, only for seeking bail. A speedy trial can obviate the need for many of such
miscellaneous matters, thereby drastically reducing the number of matters filed in the
courts and saving precious time of the courts for more constructive purposes, which
could indirectly result into further speedier trials. Thus while a delayed trial is a
vicious circle, a speedy trial is like a virtuous circle.
Another big advantage of speedy trials, for the judiciary, is the improvement
in its image. Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that the biggest factor,
contributing to whatever negative image the judiciary in India has, is the delayed
process of law. If a majority of the consumers of the justice system in India are
dissatisfied with the delivery of justice, despite good work done by judiciary, then the
biggest reason for it is the delayed proceedings in courts.
A fast trial can definitely help to improve this situation. Right to speedy trial is
the fundamental right and if the process is delayed than it would be considered as the
denial to justice and accused person shall be admitted to be released again on bail.
But, for the question of interpretation, who shall be held responsible for the cause of
the delay whether the public prosecutor or the accused, it is to be left to the judiciary
to decide as it is in the exercise of judicial discretion for granting of the security or
bail. Irrefragably, the delay in the process is an important factor to be noted at the
time of the examination of the application for bail and no court can such a myopic
(narrow-minded) view in this respect, but at the same time it cannot be
ignored/enlarged to make sure the role of the accused, in causing the delay. The old
principle is that he who has the sole discretion, must not take the advantage to give a
decent burial to the concession of the Bail, to the accused who has made a deliberate
attempt to cause delay with ultimate intentions of taking the advantage of such a
delay. In one case, in the direction have been issued by the Court for the removal of
case within a specified time, but later a counter criminal case was clubbed together at
the instance of the accused while almost all the witnesses were examined. It was
noted that the prosecution was not responsible for the delay caused by the process of
the above mentioned case and the defendant was not entitled to be release or enlarged
on bail on the ground of the delay in the process/trial.
Procedural constraints in the Code are designed to protect the rights of the
accused. Section 309, of CR. P. C. has a mandate, to the trial Court that, the
procedure for each case or study/trial or legal proceedings shall be conclude as soon
as possible, in particular, where the examination of the witnesses has once begun, it
will continue from day to day until all Witnesses have been examined in the presence,
unless the Court finds the postponement of the same on the following day , the
necessary for reasons to be recorded. Section 437 (6) of CR. P. C. has a mandate rule
that, the judges in every case has to consider that where the accused person has not
been brought before them or where there has been not recorded the evidence within
60 days form his arrest or detain in such case the accused shall be released on bail if
the trial against an accused person of a non-bailable offense is not within a period of
sixty days after the receipt of the first taking of evidence on the other hand, In the case
of the Section 167 (2) CR P. C. , WHICH IS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION, it is
also has a mandate rule that, the Magistrate may release the accused on bail if the
investigation is not concluded within the period of sixty days of ninety days, as the
case may be.
Right of Bail:
Bail is the matter of judicial discretion. Taking into account that whether to
grant bail or not, is the conflicting statements concerning the accused individual
freedom/liberty and the greater social interest must be taken into account. Under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution recognizes the fast/speedy trial as a right of
every citizen of our country. The new criminal procedure effective negotiation, If
there delay in the conclusion or the investigation it means that it is breach of the
Constitution guarantees a fair, just and equitable procedure is actually a fundamental
right and the fast/speedy trial.
Meaning of Bail:
Literal meaning of bail means: Security, Bond, Payment and Financial Guarantee
Bail, although being a legal term it is used by both people of the society 1) law
men and 2) lay men, however, this has not been statutorily clear. Conceptually, that it
is still interpreted as the assertion, assumption, and denunciation as restrictions put by
the state on freedom of individuals. The main purpose is for the presence of the
accused arrested and is available for punishment if held convicted. If the accused
assures that he will be present at each and every trial for his case then it is quite
possible that he would be released on bail and allowed him his right of liberty during
the trial.
Bail is one of the ways/method by which an accused person can be set to enjoy
his liberty/freedom in order to avoid a prison sentence. The term bail literally means
appearance of the prisoner to release/safety. With this idea, the word bail has been
taken from an old French verb bailer, which means to give or to deliver. Although
another view is that it is a Latin term "bajulare" which means "to bear a burden".
Stroud judicial dictionary spells the valley containing the details on each other as
follows: if the man be arrested, or indicted that felony, suspicion of felony, or other
event, it means he is restricted or stop from his liberty or freedom. The law provides
a bailable, which offers or asks surety to those who have the authority to grant bail to
him, sureties shall be bound by the accused to the kings a certain sum of money, or
organize a body for body, that he will appear before the king or court as the case may
be at the next trial or session to meet the goal of justice. The bonds in the sureties, as
referred to in the above. Bail is a conditional release on liberty/freedom to an accused
who ensures that the accused who or on behalf of whom undertake, is present on the
trial.
According to Blackstone:
"The arrest of a person is only to compel the appearance of the person arrested
before the court, where the sheriff detains his person or takes sufficient security for
his appearance such thing is called bail because the defendant is bailed, I bailed upon
their giving security for his appearance, and then they think that is still the friendly,
instead of objective was arrested.
Bail, in the same way should be considered as a mechanism through which the
State will assess the Community function in order to ensure the prisoner, and, at the
same time, it includes participation of the Community in the judiciary.