SC pulls up Maharashtra for opposing bail without speeding up trials

The Supreme Court criticised the Maharashtra government for opposing bail while failing to ensure speedy trials, warning it would "expose" the state publicly. The court noted only two of 34 witnesses had been examined in four years and stressed the right to a timely trial

New Delhi: Warning the Maharashtra government of “exposing” it in public, the Supreme Court has slammed the state for opposing bail plea but not expediting trial in criminal cases. A bench of Justices Ahasanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu was hearing a plea filed by a foreign national seeking bail. “Every day, we get cases of this nature from Maharashtra. You oppose bail tooth and nail, but do not take steps to expedite the trial. When we examine the case, the evidence is weak. We will expose you (the state) in public,” the bench said.

The accused, arrested in a kidnapping and murder case, contended before the bench that he had been in jail for four years and his case was listed before the trial court on 86 dates.

---

He told the apex court that he was not produced before the court 53 times. The top court said there was a serious lapse by Maharashtra in not producing the accused before the trial court.

Pointing to the apex court’s judgement on an accused’s fundamental right to speedy trial, the bench said, “We are feeling embarrassed. Only two of the 34 witnesses have been examined in four years. This aspect has been bothering this court for some time.

“When the state opposes bail pleas tooth and nail, it has a corresponding duty to conduct the trial smoothly, but it is found lacking,” the bench stated.

The counsel appearing for the Maharashtra government informed the court that the state was now producing all the accused on every date of hearing before the trial courts.

The top court, however, said that states must provide a specific policy on expediting trials. “Let at least four witnesses be examined per week, and let the record of this order be placed before the trial court. If such cases are brought to notice in future, similar stringent orders shall be passed,” the bench said.