New Delhi, Aug 12 Observing that the state "cannot have the luxury of prolonging trials for years", the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Karnataka government to provide infrastructure for an additional special court to exclusively deal with cases under the UAPA on a day-to-day basis.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana passed the directions while hearing a plea filed by Shahid Khan, an accused in a PFI conspiracy case in which the prosecution proposes to examine 707 witnesses, including a few protected witnesses.
“We direct the State of Karnataka to immediately provide the requisite infrastructure, including the creation of one additional post in the Karnataka Higher Judicial Service, along with the requisite staff and other allied facilities as per the norms fixed by the High Court. The necessary sanctions shall be accorded within two weeks,” the CJI said in the order.
Once the state sanctions the requisite infrastructure, staff and posts, the chief justice of the Karnataka High Court will spare a judicial officer to preside over the special court to deal exclusively with Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on a day-to-day basis, the court said.
“The present case shall also be entrusted to the special court. The Presiding Officer shall first examine the three protected witnesses, followed by the other vital witnesses, to ensure that the material evidence for the prosecution is recorded within a maximum period of three months,” the bench ordered.
After the examination of material witnesses, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply afresh for release on bail, it said.
“Such an application shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order,” it said.
The court also took note of the existing workload of the special court.
The state informed the bench that the existing court has around 97 trials pending and that repeated interim bail applications by different accused were also consuming considerable judicial time.
The bench noted that following its earlier order, special courts have been set up in Karnataka to try the UAPA cases, with each court expected to deal with not more than 12 to 15 cases.
“If that has not been done, compliance with our earlier order shall also be ensured. In that scenario, the Presiding Officer of the special court is expected to deal with only 12 to 15 cases, including the case in hand,” the bench said.
Referring to the delay, the bench said, “The state cannot have the luxury of prolonging this trial for years.”
Justice Bagchi observed that with 97 trials pending in special courts, even if the other cases involved substantially fewer witnesses, their completion could take years. He told the state its understanding of interim bail applications and the examination of witnesses was “faulty”, emphasising that examination of witnesses forms part of the trial and should not ordinarily stop merely because an accused has filed an interim bail application.
“When a witness is present, nowhere in India is the witness sent back because a bail application has been filed,” he said.
Referring to the present case, the bench noted that only around 50 of the 707 prosecution witnesses were stated to be material and only three protected witnesses were required to be examined in the immediate phase.
“Unless the trial is taken up on a day-to-day basis, it will be practically impossible to conclude it within a reasonable time,” the CJI said.
The CJI also criticised the length of an order passed by the trial court rejecting an accused's interim bail application.
“Look at the order passed on the interim bail application. The trial court has spent about 12 pages declining interim bail to one accused. This exercise could probably have been completed in a one-page order,” the CJI said.
“If the trial court passes orders of this length, half of the day will be consumed in writing orders,” he added.
Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for Shahid Khan, submitted that his client had been in custody for nearly four years. He also contended that nine other accused facing IPC offences arising from substantially similar allegations were already on bail.
Sondhi said his client had moved only one interim bail application, following the death of his father-in-law, and that too was rejected.
He urged the court to consider the petitioner's right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
