The Supreme Court strongly rebuked the State of Maharashtra over systemic delays in criminal trials, observing a stark dichotomy between the State’s opposition to bail and its failure to ensure a speedy trial.

While hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by a foreign national languishing in custody since May 2020 under the Indian Penal Code, Foreigners Act, and Passport Act, the Bench declined to grant bail on merits but took serious note of the fact that only two out of forty-five prosecution witnesses had been examined in over four years.

The Court drew parallels to a similar matter out of Punjab, where it had issued notices to impose a cost of ₹50,000 on the Superintendent of Police, cautioning that a similar visual of institutional default was emerging daily from Maharashtra.

Expressing deep concern over the violation of personal liberty due to a sluggish prosecution, the Court directed the State to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit by July 24 detailing a clear policy framework to prevent such institutional lapses, signaling its intent to issue overriding, pan-India directions on the issue.

The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sheel Nagu ordered, "Having considered the matter in its entirety and going through the material on record, in our considered opinion, no case for bail has been made out at this stage. We are not persuaded to allow bail to the petitioner for the present...However, having said that, we notice a disturbing aspect. That is, the petitioner is in custody for over 4 years, and out of 45 witnesses in the trial, only 2 have been examined. This aspect is something which has been bothering the Court for quite some time. The State opposes the prayer for bail of the accused tooth and nail, but when it comes to discharging its obligation by conducting a trial without undue delay, it is found totally lacking...Learned Counsel for the State submits that an opportunity be given to him to file a detailed counter-affidavit on this aspect."


The Court added, "Accordingly, only for the purposes of considering the counter-affidavit of the State of Maharashtra, specifically on the point as to why such a situation is prevailing, list on 24th of July, top of the board. In the said affidavit, the State will come up with a specific policy of how it proposes to deal with the situation so that the accused is not deprived of his liberty for reasons beyond his control and only because of the lapse of the prosecution."

The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition assailing the order passed by the Bombay High Court dismissing the bail application of the Petitioner-Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201, 149, 147 and 146 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and Sections 14, 14(b) of the Foreigners Act and Sections 12(1)(a)(b) of the Passport Act. 

The Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the accused had been languishing in custody since May 6, 2020, marking an incarceration period of over four years and two months as an undertrial. It was further contended that out of the massive pool of 45 prosecution witnesses, only two had been examined so far. Highlighting the weak nature of the evidence, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the sole witness examined thus far failed to identify the accused.

Justice Amanullah remarked, "Again Maharashtra? State of Maharashtra, what is this happening? 4 years of incarceration and... under trial! Still under trial?"

Counsel for the State submitted, "Charges are framed and witnesses are going on. Two witnesses are examined."

Justice Amanullah said, "For 4 years, are you doing a favor? The chargesheet must have been submitted within 90 days, otherwise he would have been released on bail. So, for 3 months out of 4 years plus—that means for 4 years after the chargesheet, nothing? Whose responsibility is it? We issued notice in one matter in Punjab; I am going to pass an order imposing Rs. 50,000 as cost...I will start with Maharashtra now. Every day Maharashtra is coming out with this. Rs. 50,000 cost to the Superintendent of Police. Every day, every day the same thing, same thing, same thing coming out."

Counsel for the State stated, "The impugned order also mentions the order passed by Your Lordships in a matter where Your Lordships had called the Commissioner and everybody. These are old matters. I can say that we are now improving. Substantial improvement. Your Lordships have seen in that matter, now 100% presence of..."

Justice Amanullah sternly said, "We will call the DG. We will call the DG and tell him to... in the State. Maharashtra is full of it. Every day we find Maharashtra as the defaulter. 3 years, 4 years, 5 years. Big, big acts, big, big statutes against the liberty of a person. And you know, just tooth and nail opposing there, but nothing on the ground. Double standards of the State. We will expose you before the public."

Counsel for the State said, "Lordships may issue notice. I will file my reply. I will seek instructions. It is a fresh matter. I will seek instructions as to what is happening in the trial court and I will file my detailed reply."

Justice Amanullah said, "No, no. We will... but then what do we do? 4 years in incarceration. (To the Petitioner’s Advocate) But your bail counsel... Then you are a foreign national also."

Advocate for the Petitioner, "Yes, but I am in custody for 4 years. My passport is with the police. There is no question of running away."

Justice Amanullah remarked, "You know how people run away. India is full of... No, no. You don't deserve it. Come to a foreign land and did you commit this? How dare you do it in India?"

The advocate for the Petitioner said, "Nobody has identified me. That's what I am saying. The only witness who is examined, he has not identified me. He is the only witness who said that he had seen the accused entering into the building."

Justice Amanullah remarked, "Save it for the trial. Save all those so-called technical... save it for the trial. Focus is on you, Mr. Pandey."

The Counsel for the State of Maharashtra urged the Court to grant time to seek detailed instructions from the trial court and file a counter-affidavit. The State's counsel submitted that substantial improvements had been undertaken following previous judicial interventions, leading to nearly 100% production and appearance of jail inmates before trial courts.

Justice Amanullah said, "Expedite doesn't mean very... We have to show the strength of the Constitution and the Court."

Counsel for the State of Maharashtra said, "I know our faults. We are trying to improve. And Your Lordships have seen in the matter. Now, we have reached almost 100% appearance of the accused, producing them from jail. We have reached 100% after Your Lordships' intervention."

Though the petitioner's counsel pressed for liberty, pointing out that the accused's passport was already deposited with the police, eliminating any flight risk, the Bench declined to grant bail on merits at this stage. Commenting on the gravity of the allegations involving a foreign national, Justice Amanullah remarked that technical arguments regarding identification must be reserved for the final trial. When the State offered to expedite the proceedings, the Court firmly observed that mere expedition did not suffice and that the strength of the Constitution and the judiciary must be actively demonstrated.

After the order was passed, Justice Amanullah remarked, "It will be Punjab, and now we will issue certain directions for all over the country. We have practiced... not along with that. Along with that."

Accordingly, the Bench directed the matter to be listed on July 24 at the top of the board. The State of Maharashtra was directed to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit explicitly detailing a policy framework to tackle such systemic delays, ensuring that accused persons are not deprived of their personal liberty solely due to sluggish prosecution. The Bench concluded by stating that it intends to issue comprehensive, pan-India directions on this issue, directing this matter to be tagged and listed alongside the identical case from Punjab.

Cause Title: Kelvin Chindozie Okoro v. State of Maharashtra [SLP(Crl) No. 011928]

Tags: