Supreme Court held that courts must avoid mandating time-bound investigations unless evidence shows delay or stagnation. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh said such directions should remain rare exceptions, not routine practice in criminal cases.
The Supreme Court highlighted that courts should avoid mandating time-bound investigations in criminal cases unless the evidence indicates significant delays or stagnation.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh stated that time-bound directives should be exceptions rather than the standard practice.
The Court elaborated that the investigative process can be straightforward at times, while at other moments it can involve numerous twists, turns, and recalibrations, often leading to frustrating detours.
It emphasized the necessity of granting investigative agencies a reasonable level of flexibility.
The Court explained,
“Timelines are not drawn by the Court to be followed by the investigators/the executive right from the beginning, for that would clearly amount to stepping on the toes of the latter. Timelines are therefore imposed at a point where not doing so would have adverse consequences i.e., there is material on record demonstrating undue delays, stagnation, or the like. In sum, timelines are imposed reactively and not prophylactically.”
The Court acknowledged that investigations may experience delays for various reasons, such as witnesses becoming hesitant or retracting their statements, or the documentary evidence being rendered unusable.
It also noted that legal procedures often intersect with investigations, influencing their pace and direction.
The Court stated,
“Applications for anticipatory bail, regular bail, or the like can result in temporary pauses or changes in strategy. Courts may call for further investigation, ask for clarification on specific aspects or even direct a change of the investigating officer. Each such intervention requires the investigating agency to revisit its work and sometimes take a fresh path altogether,”
Nonetheless, the Court stressed that the right to a speedy trial encompasses a timely and thorough investigation. Prolonged delays not only harm the accused, who face prolonged uncertainty regarding their freedom and reputation but also negatively impact the victim and society as a whole.
The Court highlighted the challenge of reconciling the practical aspects of investigation with the constitutional requirement to conduct criminal proceedings promptly and carefully.
The Court concluded,
“It is this balancing role that the judiciary plays,”
These remarks emerged during the adjudication of appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against three similar judgments from the Allahabad High Court regarding petitions challenging an FIR linked to alleged forgery and misuse of arms licenses.
The High Court had mandated that the investigation be completed within 90 days and instructed that the accused should not be arrested until the trial court addressed the charges against them.
In its judgment dated December 19, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court acted unjustifiably in enforcing a time-bound investigation and similarly found fault with the protections against arrest it granted.
Also Read: “We Need to Expand Infrastructure”: CJI’s Vision to Tackle Case Pendency
Consequently, it upheld the State’s appeals and cancelled the High Court’s decisions.
The Court ordered,
“Interim protection in favour of the respondents herein shall continue to operate for the next two weeks, after which, all actions as permissible in law will follow.”
The ruling sends a clear message to High Courts to exercise restraint, apply precedents contextually, and respect the investigative domain unless constitutional violations are clearly established.
Case Title: State of UP vs Mohd Arshad Khan