NEW DELHI: Frowning upon the protracted trial in heinous offences, the Supreme Court has said indefinite incarceration would violate the expanded meaning of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution as it granted reliefs to two alleged Maoist sympathisers, booked under the stringent anti-terror law UAPA.Two different benches of the apex court granted relief to the accused after noting delayed trial.In one case, the trial was expedited while in the other, bail was granted by the top court.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said the Centre should seriously think of setting up special courts to try Maoist related cases, so that the trial is expedited.The bench, which was perturbed by the fact that even after six years of arrest Ning Kham Shangtam, accused of allegedly transporting ammunition and parts of AK-47 automatic rifles from Manipur to Bihar for banned organisation Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC), a splinter group of CPI (Maoist), only 59 witnesses out of 98 have been examined.Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the NIA, submitted that the court in which the trial is going on in Bihar, was a regular court and there are other matters which are dealt by it.”It is true that the petitioner has spent nearly six years in custody and indefinite incarceration would undoubtedly violate the expanded meaning of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.However, taking into consideration the fact that the trial in the instant case can be concluded within a specified time-frame, we do not deem it necessary to go into the merits of the petitioner’s claim at this stage,” the bench said in its February 13 order uploaded on Thursday.It issued certain directions for expediting the trial in the case.The bench directed the trial court, before whom the subject-trial is pending, is directed to take up the case at least twice in a month to record the remainder of the prosecution evidence.It directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and its public prosecutor to ensure that sufficient prosecution witnesses, who are yet to be examined, remain present for their deposition before the trial court.
Source link
