Court’s Decision:
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh granted bail to petitioner No. 1, a 70-year-old woman accused of murder, while denying bail to her son, petitioner No. 2. The Court ruled that petitioner No. 1, due to her age, health issues, and the prolonged incarceration of over 12 years, deserves bail, especially since the trial is not likely to conclude soon. However, the Court instructed the trial court to dispose of the bail application for petitioner No. 2 within 30 days.
Facts:
The petitioners, a mother-son duo, are facing trial for multiple serious offenses including murder, under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 326, 324, 506, 201, and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). They have been in custody for over 12 years, since 2012, in connection with the killing of one Ghulam Mohammed Shah. The incident took place on July 4, 2012, when a violent altercation between the petitioners and the deceased led to his death the following day due to injuries. The police subsequently charged the petitioners and other family members, and they have been on trial since then.
The petitioners argue that the evidence presented by the prosecution is contradictory, with independent witnesses not corroborating the allegations made by the relatives of the deceased.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioners should be granted bail after more than 12 years in custody, despite the serious nature of the charges.
- Whether the prolonged trial and the health condition of petitioner No. 1 warrant her release on bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- Continuous Incarceration: The petitioners highlighted that they have been in custody for over 12 years without significant progress in the trial. The prosecution has not been able to conclude its examination of witnesses.
- Health Conditions: The petitioners argued that petitioner No. 1 is 70 years old and suffers from diabetes and gout, which have worsened during her time in custody.
- Inconsistent Evidence: The petitioners maintained that independent witnesses have not implicated them, and thus the charges may not be entirely reliable.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- Seriousness of the Offense: The respondents opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioners are involved in a heinous offense of murder, and their release could obstruct the ongoing trial.
- Trial Progress: The respondents asserted that the trial is proceeding smoothly, with witnesses being examined regularly, and the petitioners’ release could lead to witness tampering.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court noted the legal principle of “right to a speedy trial” as a fundamental right and emphasized that the prolonged delay in concluding the trial, especially with 12 years of continuous incarceration, affects the rights of the accused. The Court also took into account the age and health of petitioner No. 1, ruling that further detention without a foreseeable end to the trial would be unjust.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court referenced the right to a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In cases where prolonged detention occurs without the conclusion of a trial, courts have granted bail in the interest of justice.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court observed that the petitioners have been in custody for over 12 years, and the prosecution has not exhausted its witness list. The fundamental right to a speedy trial is being violated, and with no immediate likelihood of the trial concluding soon, the Court decided to grant bail to petitioner No. 1. The Court highlighted her age, health condition, and the prolonged period of custody as compelling reasons for bail.
However, the Court did not find sufficient grounds to grant bail to petitioner No. 2 at this stage, considering the serious nature of the charges against him. It directed the trial court to expedite his bail application within 30 days.
Conclusion:
The Court allowed bail to petitioner No. 1, considering her age and health, subject to certain conditions, including the furnishing of sureties. Petitioner No. 2’s bail application was directed to be disposed of by the trial court within 30 days.
Implications:
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on the right to a speedy trial and the need to prevent indefinite detention, especially in cases involving prolonged incarceration without conclusion of a trial. The case also reflects the courts’ consideration of humanitarian grounds, such as age and health, when deciding bail applications in serious offenses.
