It cannot be left unsaid that those who leave charges unframed against the accused for a very long period of time must be definitely punished very strictly no matter who they are whether they are police officers or judges or anyone else. It is solely because most strict action is not taken against the erring police officials or judges responsible for it that we keep hearing of many such cases where charges remain unframed many years even after arrest. This is the biggest violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which pertains to the right to life and personal liberty and which postulates that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.” It definitely merits no reiteration that this must be implemented in letter and spirit also.
We must note here that the Bombay High Court in this noteworthy case titled Jahid alias Javed Liyakat Ansari vs The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Bail Application No. 2244 of 2023 in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction that was pronounced as recently as on December 11, 2023 has sought an explanation from the District Judge of Thane and the District Judge of Belapur regarding why the charges have not been framed against an individual, despite five years having passed since his arrest. At the risk of repetition, it must be said that there definitely has to be zero tolerance when it comes to the personal liberty of the accused who is made to wrongly suffer imprisonment without even charges having been framed against them. It must be mentioned here that a Single-Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court that was presided over by Hon’ble Ms Justice Bharathi Dangre who had heard an application that was filed by Javed Liyakat Ansari who was charged with murder by the police.
It must be recalled that it was in July 2022 that the Bench had expressed its disinclination to hear the matter that had lead to its withdrawal. In the same year, the trial had not progressed due to pandemic. But the Bombay High Court had directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within a year. The Bench was surprised to learn that 1.5 years had passed since the High Court’s order yet the charges had not been framed. In its scathing indictment of the way in which the Trial Court had handled the matter, the Bombay High Court observed that the judicial system seemed to have overlooked the applicant as he had not been produced before the Court. The Court also observed that an accused who is incarcerated as an under-trial prisoner for the last five years, definitely deserve an answer.
At the very outset, this learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Bharathi Dangre of the Bombay High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “On 06/07/2022, the Application was withdrawn, when I expressed my disinclination to entertain the same. However, considering the pandemic situation, as the trial did not progress during the said period, the Court trying the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was requested to make an endeavour to commence the trial and conclude the same within one year. Six months more than the period granted has expired, and surprisingly I am informed that till date, leave aside the conclusion of the trial, even the charge is not framed. It is also informed to me that the sessions trial is now transferred to the Court of District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Belapur and the learned counsel for the Applicant would submit that there is no production of the Applicant/Accused before the said Court.”
Most significantly and most pathetically, the Bench minces just no words to hold in para 2 what forms the cornerstone of this notable judgment wherein it is postulated that, “With a heavy heart and with great regret, I must note that the judicial system has probably forgotten about this Applicant, as he has not been produced before the Court and despite his arrest some five years back, the Court has not even bothered to frame the charge. The response which is certainly expected from the Belapur Court, would be that the sessions case is transferred to it lately and earlier it was with the Thane court. Thane Court, would now raise its hands, by submitting that the said Court is not in session of the trial and it is transferred to the Belapur Court.”
Most commendably and quite forthrightly, the Bench then goes on to propound in para 3 stating that, “The aforesaid situation definitely depict a sorry state of affairs, when time and again the Apex Court has warned about the right of an accused and specifically right to have speedy trial. Though on the ground of long incarceration, I could have released the Applicant on bail, I deem it appropriate to have an explanation from the District Judge, Thane as well as the District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Belapur, as at some or the other time, the system must fix an accountability on individuals, rather than talking about the delays in the process on account of huge pendency. An accused, who is incarcerated as an under-trial prisoner for last five years, definitely deserve an answer.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench then in the fitness of things then hastens to add in para 4 mandating that, “Let the District Judge, Thane as well as the District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Belapur offer their explanation about why the charge has not been framed and as to on how many dates, the accused was not produced before it. Let the explanation be furnished on or before 18/12/2023. The above order shall be communicated to the concerned Courts through the Registrar (Judicial I), apart from the learned A.P.P.”
Finally, we see that the Bench then concludes by directing in para 5 that, “To be listed on 18/12/2023 at 2.30 p.m.”
In a nutshell, it may well be said that the the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Bharathi Dangre of the Bombay High Court has rightly taken the most serious view of charges not being framed against the accused even five years after his arrest. It must be acknowledged that the Bombay High Court has also very rightly called upon the Trial Court i.e. the District Judge of Thane and the District Judge of Belapur to explain why the charges have not been framed against the accused despite five years having been passed since his arrest which is quite a serious matter. It is high time and Centre must take the initiative now to punish those Judges and so also those police officers who are responsible in some form or the other in ensuring that the charges have not been framed against an accused so that a loud and clear message goes to all those sitting in high posts that they cannot hold to ransom the right to personal liberty of even an accused under any circumstances and this will be the most healthy sign of a vibrant democratic country like India! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi
