Dilawar vs The State Of Haryana

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

ORDER

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

matter for modification of order of this Court dated 31 st 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 30 th September, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MADHU BALA 2016, to the CBI along with several other cases. Court Date: 2018.05.03 16:33:39 IST Reason:

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 2 nd 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 6 th

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 3 rd July,

2018.

……………………………….J. ( Adarsh Kumar Goel )

……………………………….J. ( Indu Malhotra )

New Delhi;

May 01, 2018.