While making the right, rational and remarkable move, the Allahabad High Court has in an extremely laudable, landmark, learned and latest judgment titled Rajnish vs State of UP in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 20805 of 2022 pronounced as recently as on August 6, 2022 granted bail to a murder accused who spent more than 11 years in jail as he could not get access to legal aid to move his bail application before the Court. It is a national shame that Allahabad High Court which is the biggest High Court in the whole world has just one High Court Bench and that too just about 200 km away from Allahabad at Lucknow created way back by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in 1948 and nowhere else has a Bench been created since then even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice Jaswant Singh appointed by former PM Mrs Indira Gandhi way back in mid 1970s had very strongly recommended three High Court Benches for undivided UP yet not even one was not created due to which 10 crore people of 30 districts of West UP are compelled to travel more than 800 km on an average all the way foolishly till Allahabad as no Bench created even though a Bench was recommended to be created at Agra! What is worst is that the 230th Law Commission of India also in 2009 recommended for more High Court Benches for different states yet only one state named Karnataka gained where 2 High Court Benches were created for just 4 and 8 districts at Dharwad and Gulbarga respectively way back in 2013! Even former Union Law Minister Kapil Sibal had recommended a High Court Bench at Meerut while he was Union Law Minister yet not a single created! Even Yogi Adityanath who is CM had brought a private member bill in 2015 in Parliament and even in 1998 had raised it in Parliament for Bench at Gorakhpur yet not a single created till now! Even former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Leader of Opposition demanded Bench in West UP at Meerut in 1986 yet none created till now! It cannot be lightly dismissed that none other than the former CJI Ranjan Gogoi while in office as CJI had categorically appreciated the dire need of a High Court Bench in West UP when a woman lawyer named KL Chitra raised this burning issue in her PIL pointing out how litigants had to travel a night and half day all the way to Allahabad which is 200 km away from Lucknow and about 750 to 800 km from West UP but ex CJI Gogoi made it clear as CJI that it was only for the Centre to take the final call on this as it has the sole power to do so! But Centre is doing just nothing on it but let us still hope it will act in coming days!
Anyway, coming back to the case in hand, at the very outset, the ball is set rolling by first and foremost putting forth in opening para of this notable judgment that, “By means of this bail application, the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 556 of 2011 at Police Station Chaubepur District Varanasi under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 120B, 34 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 26.04.2011.”
As we see, the Bench then states in the next para that, “The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi, on 19.04.2022.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in the next para of this concise judgment that, “Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The applicant did not torture the deceased not did he demand dowry. In fact he never interfered the marital life of the deceased and her husband. The applicant was nominated only out of malafides. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.”
Furthermore, the Bench then states in the next para that, “Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is in jail since 26.04.2011 i.e. more than 11 years. Inordinate delay in concluding trial had lead to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without the prosecution evidence connecting the applicant to the offence. The right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated. The applicant has always cooperated with the investigation proceedings and has joined the trial as a law abiding citizen.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench then minces no words to hold in the next para of this laudable judgment that, “This is the first bail application which has been moved by the applicant before this Court. The applicant belongs to the bottom heap of humanity and unfortunately forgotten class of citizens. He did not have the resources to engage a counsel nor was he given to access to legal aid for these long years. Constitutional promise of securing justice has been denied to him.”
Most remarkably, the Bench then also minces no words to hold upfront in the next para of this laudable judgment that, “This appears to be a systemic failure. The Court will observer no further. However, it is for all instruments of governance, the trial courts, the police authorities, the legal services authorities to introspect and bring about necessary systemic corrections with the conviction that such a state of affairs will not be repeated. Never again. The District Legal Services Authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh shall draw up a list of prisoners who are incarcerated for long period and examine whether they have not been able to move bail applications due to penury and lack of access to legal aid. Corrective measures should accordingly be taken. Legal aid workshop should be conducted in every jail in the State of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that such grievances are promptly redressed.”
Going forward, the Bench then holds in the next para that, “Learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions. I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.”
What’s more, the Bench then directs in the next para of this brilliant judgment that, “Let the applicant- Rajnish be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in the last para of this noteworthy judgment that, “In case any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the course of argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the State/prosecution may move an application for cancellation of bail application.”
In sum, it must be said that in all fairness, the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ajay Bhanot of Allahabad High Court has taken a very cool, calibrated and courageous move in granting bail to a murder accused who spent 11 years in jail for want of legal aid. Justice Bhanot was gracious enough to concede that the constitutional promise was denied to the accused due to which he had to spend 11 years in jail as he could not get any legal aid which is most astonishing, appalling and must be taken note of by not just the Apex Court but also by the Centre! It is high time and Centre must step in and now and make sure that undertrials get free and quality legal aid and also their case gets tried at the earliest which is possible if more High Court Benches are set up as was recommended by the 230th report of the Law Commission of India. It certainly brooks no more delay anymore now!
Needless to say, this alone explains why the 18th Law Commission in its 230th report submitted in August 2009 by the then Chairman of Law Commission of India – Justice Dr AR Lakshmanan who is a former Supreme Court Judge had explicitly noted that, “In almost every High Court, there is huge pendency of cases and the present strength of the judges can hardly be said to be sufficient to cope with the alarming situation. The institution of cases is much more than the disposal and it adds to arrears of cases. The litigating citizens have a fundamental right of life i.e. a tension-free life through speedy justice-delivery system. Now it has become essential that the present strength of the judges should be increased manifold according to the pendency, present and probable. It is also necessary that the work of the High Courts is decentralized, that is, more Benches are established in all States. If there is manifold increase in the strength of the judges and the staff, all cannot be housed in one campus. Therefore, the establishment of new Benches is necessary. It is also in the interest of the litigants. The Benches should be so established that a litigant is not required to travel long. It is true that the new establishments will require money, but it is necessary as a development measure, particularly, when efforts are being made for all-round development of the country. Therefore, the money should not be a problem. We have to watch and protect the interest of the litigants. We must always keep in mind that the existence of judges and advocates is because of the litigants and they are there to serve their cause only. Sometimes, some advocates object to creation of new Benches and selection of new sites for construction of new buildings. But they raise objections in their personal, limited interest. Creation of new Benches is certainly beneficial for the litigants and the lawyers and a beginning has to be made somewhere. A speedy trial is not only required to give quick justice but it is also an integral part of the fundamental right of life, personal liberty, as envisaged in article 21 of the Constitution. Article 39A of the Constitution provides for equal justice and free legal aid. The said article obligates the State to promote justice on a basis of equal opportunity and, in particular, provide free legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities!”
It is more than 13 years that the Law Commission made this historic recommendation yet ironically only one State – Karnataka has gained from it and the bigger States like UP, Bihar, Rajasthan, Odisha etc have not gained anything as not even a single High Court Bench has been created anywhere! Should not the CJI UU Lalit do something most promptly on this? Maharashtra from where CJI UU Lalit comes has 3 High Court Benches at Aurangabad, Nagpur and Panaji and fourth has been approved at Kolhapur for just 6 districts even though Maharashtra tops in justice index ranking among all States in India and UP which tops in maximum pending cases among all States has just one and another lawless State Bihar has none! This most shocking disparity among different States is most despicable and must be set right at the earliest! Let’s fervently hope that Centre will at least now do something in this regard!
Sanjeev Sirohi
