Fixing probe timelines can be exception, not rule: Top court

NEw new delhi: Fixing timelines for pass completion of dig into tin be justified only when in cases of undue delay or situations where it adversely affects liberty of citizens, the Supreme Court noted in a recent judgment as it set aside an order of the Allahabad high court that directed the police to complete a probe into arms licence forgery within three months.The court’s decision comes as a rider to the vast powers available to high courts under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs. The apex court reminded high courts to be alive to the practical realities of investigation where a time-bound probe should be imposed as a matter of exception and not as a norm.Prescribing a “balanced approach”, a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh in its order dated December 19 said, “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.”It added: “Legal proceedings frequently intersect with the investigation and affect its pace and direction”, as sometimes an investigation of an offence could become a “long, winding road” making it unpredictable at times.“The investigative process is at times straight, at other times one of lots of twists, turns and recalibrations and in yet others, frustratingly round-about like, before it can come to a somewhat definitive conclusion to present the case for trial,” the court noted.Some of the instances, the court cited, that may delay the probe could be witnesses who hesitate or completely resile from their statement, documentary evidence considered crucial may turn out to be unusable, or the investigating agencies may confront applications for anticipatory bail, regular bail, etc that may temporarily impede the probe.The bench observed that investigation is, as seen from the above instances, a product of many factors and happenings apart from the crime itself, that lend to it a sense of uncertainty and the law thus accords investigating agencies a “reasonable degree of latitude”.“Courts respect the practical realities of investigation, yet intervene where delay itself threatens fairness, liberty, or the integrity of the criminal justice process,” justice Karol, writing the judgment for the bench, said.The court set aside the Allahabad high court’s decisions passed June-July this year in the case of three accused facing probe for getting arms licences through forged documents. While the state police began probe in May, the high court directed the probe to be completed within 90 days and granted protection from arrest to the accused till the trial court takes cognisance of the charge sheet submitted by the police.Allowing the state government’s plea by setting aside the timeline along with the direction protecting the accused from arrest, the top court noted that Article 226 provides a vast reserve of power to the high courts which, in the past, have exercised their jurisdiction to interdict criminal proceedings, protect personal liberty by fast-tracking trial, ensure fair investigation or procedural safeguards to the accused, with the aim of protecting fundamental rights.“The challenge, therefore, lies in balancing the practical realities of investigation with the constitutional mandate that criminal proceedings, from investigation through trial, be conducted with reasonable promptitude and care,” the bench noted, in realisation of the principle that denial of speedy trial not just prejudices the accused but the victim of the crime and society at large.“Courts have consistently recognised that directing a timebound investigation must remain the exception rather than the norm,” the judgment said, pointing out various instances when the top court interfered by fixing timeline where there is evident stagnation in probe, unexplained inaction, or a pattern of delay that cannot be justified by the nature or complexity of the case.“Courts have also been mindful of the impact of prolonged investigation on personal liberty, particularly where coercive measures or extended custody are involved. In such cases, fixing timelines is viewed not as an intrusion into the investigative domain, but as a safeguard against inertia and arbitrariness,” it added.Even on the other aspect where the high court protected the accused from arrest, the court said such orders should not be a “mechanical exercise” as it needs to and should reflect “application of mind”. The high court had relied on its order passed earlier this year in a civil dispute case where similar directions on timeline and protection to accused was ordered. The top court found that timeline there was justified as the case suffered from protracted delay and protecting the accused was warranted when investigation is time-bound.However, it noted that the high court did not discuss how that order was relevant to the facts of the present case. “This application of mind is in connection with the evaluation of material facts of the two cases, since they are essential to decision making…This exercise is ex facie absent in the impugned orders,” the bench said, allowing the state’s appeal.