Summary
The CBI sought cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a rape trial. The Supreme Court declined to cancel bail, which had operated for about a year, but, noticing that the victim's further examination had been put off by months and that the prosecution proposed some 30 witnesses, reiterated the day-to-day trial mandate of Section 309 CrPC (now Section 346 BNSS) and the right to speedy trial under Article 21, and asked High Courts to circulate directions to trial courts against piecemeal trials and adjournments.
Issues
- Whether the bail granted by the High Court to the accused in a rape case should be cancelled.
- Whether a trial court may adjourn or defer the examination of a witness, particularly the victim, for months, and what Section 309 CrPC requires once examination of witnesses begins.
- What directions should be issued to ensure continuous, day-to-day criminal trials.
Provisions considered
- Section 309 (now Section 346, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Read as mandating that once examination of witnesses begins it continues day to day, that witnesses in attendance must be examined unless special reasons are recorded, and that an advocate's inconvenience is not a special reason; the Court disapproved deferring cross-examination to later months and framed directions on that basis. (¶¶ 12, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 37)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaThe right to a speedy trial, covering all stages and available even to an accused on bail, was treated as part of the right to life and liberty, and Section 309 was seen as giving effect to it. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32)
Held
- As the accused had been on bail for nearly a year, the Court declined to cancel bail, while requiring that the trial proceed expeditiously with only important witnesses examined and that the accused comply with his bail conditions. (¶¶ 11, 42)
- Although the Public Prosecutor is in charge of the trial, the trial judge should look into whether unnecessary witnesses are protracting the trial and may ask the prosecutor why a particular witness is needed; it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence that matters. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10)
- Once examination of witnesses starts, the trial must continue day to day until all witnesses in attendance are examined; while the court has discretion to defer cross-examination, the practice of recording examination-in-chief in one month and cross-examination in a later month is disapproved, and adjournments on flimsy grounds defeat Section 309. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 29, 33, 34)
- Speedy trial is an integral part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 at every stage, in the interest of the accused and of the public, and Section 309 was enacted in keeping with that mandate. (¶¶ 24, 25, 28, 31, 32)
- Courts should return to the practice of day-to-day trials, and High Courts should constitute committees to consider the issue for their district judiciaries. (¶¶ 35, 36)
- The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue a circular to district courts directing expeditious trials; day-to-day examination of witnesses; no adjournment without examining witnesses in attendance save for recorded special reasons; no adjournment for an advocate's convenience except in exceptional cases such as bereavement; measures against non-cooperation (show cause on bail cancellation where counsel colludes with the accused, appointment of amicus curiae, costs, and cancellation of bail of an absent accused); advance scheduling of witness dates; and service of summons through the Public Prosecutor. (¶ 37)
Result
Petition disposed of without cancelling bail; the Public Prosecutor to secure the victim's presence for further cross-examination; the trial court to examine the remaining witnesses at the earliest and conclude the trial with judgment by 31.12.2025; the accused to abide by bail conditions; copies to be sent to all High Courts.