SC warns Maharashtra of public expose over denial of bail without speedy trial

The Supreme Court on Friday sharply questioned the Maharashtra government over delays in criminal trials, saying the state was strongly opposing bail pleas without taking steps to ensure speedy hearings. The court said this was a recurring pattern and warned the state that it would be "exposed" in public if such cases continued to come up.

Hearing a bail plea filed by a foreign national arrested in a kidnapping and murder case, a bench of Justices Ahasanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu said there was a serious lapse in the accused not being produced before the trial court on several dates. The bench also said the pace of the trial was deeply concerning, with only two of 34 witnesses examined in four years.

During the hearing, the bench told the state, "Every day, we get cases of this nature from Maharashtra. You oppose bail tooth and nail, but do not take steps to expedite the trial. When we examine the case, the evidence is weak. We will expose you (the state) in public."

The accused told the court that he had spent four years in jail and that his case had been listed before the trial court on 86 dates. He said he was not produced before the court on 53 of those occasions.

The Supreme Court said Maharashtra had failed seriously by not producing the accused before the trial court. Referring to its judgement on an accused person's fundamental right to a 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."

The bench added, "When the state opposes bail pleas tooth and nail, it has a corresponding duty to conduct the trial smoothly, but it is found lacking."

Appearing for the Maharashtra government, counsel told the court that the state was now producing all accused persons on every date of hearing before trial courts. The Supreme Court, however, said states must have a specific policy to expedite trials.

The bench directed, "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." The court's remarks summed up its concern that bail opposition must go hand in hand with a timely and properly conducted trial.

- Ends