LI Network
Published on: October 28, 2023 at 18:59 IST
The Delhi High Court has asserted that even if an accused is a habitual offender facing multiple criminal cases, the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be compromised.
The Court made this statement while addressing a petition under Article 227 combined with Section 482 of the Cr.PC, seeking directives to ensure the trial’s completion within two months from the upcoming hearing date.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, presiding over a single-bench, stated, “Although the petitioner is involved in approximately 20 criminal cases and has a history of habitual offending, this cannot be grounds to deny the petitioner’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Despite the petitioner’s abscondence causing a three-year delay in the trial, the right to a speedy trial, an essential right under criminal law and Article 21, cannot be diluted or undermined.”
Represented by Advocate Akshay Bhandari, the petitioner had been absconding from 2013 to 2016, contributing to the three-year delay. The case, pending for nearly 14 years, had all prosecution evidence completed, leaving only the Investigating Officer’s testimony pending.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the extended delay seriously jeopardized the fundamental right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21.
The petitioner sought a court directive for the Trial Court to promptly conclude the trial, preferably within two months from the next hearing.
Contrastingly, the respondent’s counsel contended that it was unfair for the petitioner to assert a prolonged delay since the petitioner was a habitual offender facing numerous pending cases.
After considering the arguments from both sides, the High Court concluded, “…the petitioner is entitled to the rights under Article 21 for a speedy trial. Therefore, the Trial Court is urged to complete the entire trial within six months from the next hearing scheduled for 16th October 2023.“
Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition titled Jamal Ranjha v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, underscoring the importance of upholding an accused’s right to a speedy trial despite their history as a habitual offender.