The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over repeated and unexplained delays in criminal trials in Maharashtra while hearing a 2019 Muthoot Finance dacoity case. The Court noted that only one witness has been examined in nearly seven years and sought an explanation from the State.
The Supreme Court of India recently expressed serious concern over the slow progress of the trial in a 2019 Muthoot Finance dacoity case in Nashik, where an employee named Saju Samuel was shot dead during a robbery attempt.
A Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan noted that there has been an unusually long delay in the trial and that the responsibility for this delay appears to lie with the State of Maharashtra. Taking note of the issue, the Court issued a notice to the State government and sought an explanation regarding the slow progress of the case.
While hearing the matter, the Bench highlighted that it has repeatedly come across cases where criminal trials in Maharashtra have been delayed for long periods without proper justification. The judges said that such delays raise serious concerns about the functioning of the prosecution and the criminal justice process in the State.
“One factor which has seriously made the Court concerned is the fact that repeatedly it has been noticing inexplicable and huge delay in trial being conducted, especially by the State of Maharashtra,” the Court observed.
The Bench further pointed out that the First Information Report (FIR) in this case was registered in June 2019, but even after several years, the trial has hardly progressed. According to the Court, only one witness has been examined so far, which indicates the slow pace of the proceedings.
“This speaks volumes of the conduct of the prosecution,”
the Court remarked.
Considering the situation, the Supreme Court directed the Nashik Police Commissioner to file a personally affirmed affidavit. The affidavit must explain why the trial has not moved forward properly and must also clearly state the role allegedly played by each accused person in the case.
“One factor which has seriously made the Court concerned is the fact that repeatedly it has been noticing inexplicable and huge delay in trial being conducted, especially by the State of Maharashtra.”
The Court was hearing a plea filed by one of the accused persons whose bail application had earlier been rejected by the Bombay High Court.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner was among the group of accused involved in the robbery attempt at the finance company branch and is alleged to have fired the shot that killed the employee.
The case relates to an incident that took place on June 14, 2019. On that day, a group of five to six armed men allegedly entered a branch of Muthoot Finance in Nashik with the intention of committing a dacoity. During the attempted robbery, employee Saju Samuel tried to resist the attackers. In response, he was shot by one of the accused and later died due to his injuries.
The petitioner in the case was arrested on June 25, 2019. He is facing serious criminal charges including Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with dacoity accompanied by murder, and Section 120B IPC related to criminal conspiracy. In addition, charges under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act for illegal possession and use of firearms have been invoked. The accused is also being prosecuted under provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
Earlier, the accused had approached the Special MCOCA Court in Nashik seeking regular bail. However, the trial court rejected the bail application on March 19, 2024. After that, the accused moved the Bombay High Court with a fresh bail plea, but the High Court also refused to grant bail.
Following the rejection by the High Court, the accused approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.
Before the apex court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that he has been in custody for nearly seven years and that the trial has barely progressed in all this time. It was highlighted that only one witness has been examined so far, which shows the extremely slow pace of the proceedings.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Mandates Clear Charts in Criminal Judgments to Speed Up Trials
The petitioner also argued that other accused persons who are similarly placed in the case have already been granted bail, and therefore continued detention in his case is unfair.
After hearing the submissions from both sides, the Supreme Court issued notice in the matter and decided to examine the issue further. The Court has listed the case for the next hearing on April 10.
Advocates Sana Raees Khan and Dhawesh Pahuja appeared for the petitioner before the Supreme Court. The State of Maharashtra was represented by Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya A Pande, Sushmita Pande, Adarsh Dubey and Aditya Krishna.
Case Title:
Parmendra @ Gauravsing Rajendra Sinha vs State of Maharashtra.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Criminal Trials
