The Allahabad High Court in the case Mahesh Chandra Shukla v. State of U.P. observed and has granted bail to a murder accused as it noted that 13 years of incarceration without conclusion of the trial had violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial.
The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed while dealing with the 4th bail application of the murder Mahesh Chandra Shukla, the accused seeking his release on bail in a criminal case under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
It was contended by the Counsel appearing for the applicant-accused that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and he does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.
Further, it was submitted that since July 2009, the applicant is in jail and the trial has not concluded to date and that inordinate delay in the trial will lead to indefinite incarceration of the accused.
The Court in the earlier hearing in the matter, called for a report from the trial court, Allahabad, in relation with the cause for the delay and the status of the trial. In the repost it was not mentioned that the applicant was in any manner responsible for the delay.
While taking the circumstances of the case, the court noted and stressed upon the fundamental right of the accused to speedy justice.
In the present case, the court observed that the applicant has a fundamental right to speedy justice. However, incarceration of the applicant in the facts of this case will lead violation of the right to speedy trial. Thus, of constitutional courts there are good authorities which have held that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Thirteen years of incarceration without conclusion of the trial in the facts of this case has violated this right of the applicant and the trial in its comments has sought to assure the Court that the trial be expeditiously concluded. The Court stated that this court cannot assurance of its face value, in view of the past conduct of the trial.
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to interim bail and thus, the trial court was asked to make all endeavour’s to conclude the trial. The court directed the applicant-Mahesh Chandra Shukla to be released on interim bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.
