RAMU ALIAS DHARYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are Habeas Corpus petitions filed by the accused persons who are undergoing trial for offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) in various Sessions Courts in Karnataka. It is their case that they were arrested initially in Cr. No. 64 of 1987 of Golgumbas Police Station, Bijapur by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bijapur on 27-7-1987 and they were charge sheeted for the offence of decoity in 23 cases punishable under Sections 395 and 397, I.P.C. It is their main grievance that though the petitioners were arrested on 27-7-1987 and continued to be in Judicial Custody, there is no progress in the case and the trial is not yet commenced in many cases. It is further submitted that out of 23 cases, 12 cases ended in acquittal and they were convicted in one case S.C. 29 of 1989 on the file if the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tumkur, for a period 7 years which was later modified by this court to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. They have already undergone the punishment. But still they continued to be in Judicial Custody in other 10 cases as the trial in the said cases are yet to commence. It is further submitted that the main reason for no commencement of the above trial is due to inaction on the part of the respondent-State in not producing the petitioners before the Courts form Judicial Custody. It is also their case that though the trial Courts have issued body warrants repeatedly for production of the petitioners before the Courts for trial, respondents have not obeyed the orders of issuing body warrants. The Courts have also not taken serious steps against the respondents for non-production of the petitioners before the Courts. The Courts have extended remand mechanically. The prosecuting agency also has not taken any effective step for completion of trial launched against the petitioners. The lethargic attitude of the prosecution is also responsible for the delay in trial. They have complained to the Court that total period of 9 years pretrial detention suffered by them is not due to the contributory act of the petitioners themselves. They are poor people and are unable to engage any legal practitioner of their choice to defend their cases. However, they are now provided with legal assistance to defend them in the trial. They could not move the bail applications for want of sureties. They have undergone detention for about 9 years without any trial. It complained by them that there is no possibility of trials in various Courts within shortest possible time. Therefore, the period of detention already suffered by them is unfair and unjustifiable. Having regard to the nature of offences alleged against them the fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is denied to them. Therefore, their further detention by Courts is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and therefore, they are entitled for an order to quash all the proceedings.

(2.) After notice, the learned High Court Government Advocate prefers to file a counter affidavit of one S. M. Abbai, Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore, offering their explanation for delayed trial and non-production of the accused before the various Courts.

(3.) The sum and substance of the explanation offered in the counter-affidavit is that the timely police escort was not provided as the police had to make elaborate bundobast arrangement during the visit of V.I.Ps. to that particular place and also during festival days. They have also stated that the accused could not produced before the particular Courts, as they were lodged in a particular place till the completion of trial in that place. While doing so, the State appears to have questioned the maintainability of Habeas Corpus writs on the ground that the detention is not unlawful. According to them, petitions are not maintainable as mala finds or ulterior purpose are not alleged against the State. They tried to assert that non-production of accused persons before the respective Sessions Court is not unreasonable and unfair and hence according to them there is no violation of law much less Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also their objection that the petitioners have not availed the procedure contemplated for bail in criminal cases and therefore, they prayed for dismissal of these petitions.