NEW DELHI: “The accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation,” the Supreme Court said, holding that the right to speedy investigation is also part of fundamental rights. The court said it will benefit the accused, the victim, and society if the investigation and trial are done quickly and completed within a reasonable time. Though it refrained from framing any timeline for completion of probe, which it said was not practical and feasible, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said that an accused could approach courts for quashing of a case for inordinate delay in the probe. The court noted that there had unfortunately been many cases in which there was massive delay in filing chargesheet/taking cognisance etc. It said the right to speedy trial is an important facet of Article 21 (fundamental right to life). “Timely completion of investigation is inherent thereto,” it said.
Right to speedy trial covers all stages: SC The bench said the court has repeatedly underscored the necessity of speedy investigation and trial but for various reasons this is still not a reality. It said the right to speedy trial covers all the stages – investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial – and shouldn’t be seen narrowly.”The accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation and eventual trial proceedings bearing over their everyday existence,” the bench said and added that the apex court in its various rulings hold unequivocally that investigation is covered under the right to speedy trial and that violation of this right can strike at the root of the investigation itself, leading it to be quashed.”At the same time, it must be said that timelines cannot be set in stone for an investigation to be completed nor can outer limit be prescribed within which necessarily, an investigation must be drawn to a close. This is evidenced by the fact that further investigation or rather permission therefore, can be granted even after commencement of trial,” it said.Supreme Court said the process of investigation has many moving parts and is therefore impractical to have strict timelines in place but emphasised that investigations cannot continue endlessly.
