Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: Putting a premium on the liberty of arrested people, Supreme Court Friday said though it was endemic for states to oppose bail pleas tooth and nail, no corresponding steps were taken to expedite trials despite the apex court’s repeated rulings that accused have a fundamental right to a speedy trial.Days after imposing a fine of Rs 50,000 on the Amritsar SP after finding Punjab was not taking steps to produce an accused before the trial court to expedite the proceedings but was opposing his bail plea even though he had been in custody for a long period, a bench of Justices Ahasanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu found Maharashtra remiss on a similar count.Disapproving the negligent attitude that dents the right to a speedy trial, the bench said, “Every day we get cases of this nature from Maharashtra – oppose bail tooth and nail but not take steps to expedite trial. When we examine the case, the evidence is weak. We will expose you (the state) in public.”The man in question has been in jail for four years, and only two of 34 witnesses have been examined so far, the bench said. The accused, foreign national Kelvin Chindozie Okoro, was arrested in May 2022 for kidnapping and murder. HC had rejected his bail plea twice – in June 2024 and on March 17 this year.Okoro said he had been in custody for four years and his case was listed before the trial court on 86 dates, but he was not produced before the court on 53 occasions. The bench said it would not grant bail to the accused on merit but there was a serious lapse on the part of Maharashtra in not producing the accused before the trial court on every date of hearing. Referring to repeated SC rulings on an accused’s fundamental right to speedy trial, the bench said, “We are feeling embarrassed. Only two of the 34 witnesses have been examined in four years. This aspect has been bothering this court for some time. When the state opposes bail pleas tooth and nail, it has a corresponding duty to conduct the trial smoothly, but it is found lacking.”When Maharashtra’s counsel said the state was lacking earlier but had now achieved a 100% rate in the production of the accused on every date of hearing before trial courts, SC said it was a pan-India problem. “States must come out with a specific policy on expediting trials,” it said. In the Punjab case, the Justice Amanullah-led bench had observed, “Let at least four witnesses be examined per week and let the record of this order be placed before the trial court. If such cases are brought to notice in future, similar stringent orders shall be passed.”
