Charges Unframed Five Years Since Arrest: Bombay High Court Seeks Explanation From Trial Court
Charges Not Framed for Long Time (Five Years) Since Arrest
1. Importance of Framing Charges:
Framing of charges is a critical stage in a criminal trial.
It informs the accused of the specific allegations against them.
It ensures the accused can prepare an effective defense.
It separates the cases where there is a prima facie case for trial from those where there is none.
2. Delay in Framing Charges — Consequences:
Excessive delay (like 5 years) in framing charges after arrest is unjustifiable and violates principles of speedy trial.
It leads to violation of the accused's right to a fair trial and liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution).
Long delays cause mental agony, social stigma, and prolonged incarceration or restrictions.
It may amount to prejudicial trial process.
Courts frown upon inordinate delay and may issue directions or seek explanations from trial courts.
3. Responsibility of Trial Courts:
Trial courts have a duty to frame charges promptly after completion of investigation and submission of charge-sheet.
Trial court must apply judicial mind and examine whether a prima facie case is made out.
Delay without reasons amounts to neglect of judicial duty.
4. Role of Higher Courts (e.g., Bombay High Court):
Higher courts monitor the progress of cases to ensure speedy trial.
If charges remain unframed for years, High Courts can intervene and seek explanation or issue directions.
High Courts can also order discharge or quashment if no prima facie case is found.
If prosecution is negligent, courts can reprimand and direct expeditious disposal.
Relevant Case Laws:
1. K.K. Verma vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 970
The Supreme Court emphasized the right to a speedy trial.
Long delay in any stage of the trial, including framing charges, violates Article 21.
The Court recognized that the accused should not be kept in uncertainty or prolonged legal process.
2. State of Maharashtra vs. Rakhiram Mundair, AIR 1980 SC 1456
The Court observed that delay in framing charges causes prejudice to the accused.
It emphasized that trial courts must frame charges promptly after submission of the charge-sheet.
3. Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
Though primarily about arrest, the Court stressed judicial responsibility in criminal procedure.
The judgment reinforced that courts should ensure no unnecessary delay in procedures, including framing charges.
4. Ramlal vs. State of Rajasthan, (1977) 1 SCC 370
The Supreme Court held that if charges are not framed for a long time, the accused may be entitled to discharge.
Prolonged delay in framing charges affects the right to a fair trial.
5. Bombay High Court — Sanjay Dattatraya Chougule vs. State of Maharashtra (Order dated September 2019)
The Court directed the trial court to explain the delay in framing charges for several years.
The HC stressed that delay is untenable and unacceptable.
It directed expeditious framing of charges to safeguard the accused’s rights.
Summary:
Framing charges promptly is crucial for a fair trial.
Delay of five years or more in framing charges after arrest is excessive and unjustified.
Such delay violates the accused’s fundamental rights and right to speedy trial.
Trial courts have a duty to frame charges without undue delay.
High Courts (like Bombay HC) intervene to seek explanations and direct speedy framing.
Failure to frame charges timely can lead to discharge or quashing of proceedings
RELATED Blog
0 comments