Supreme Court of India
NIMEON SANGMA & ORS. versus HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA & ORS
- Decided
- 30 April 1979
- Judges listed
- V.R. KRISHNA IYER, R.S. PATHAK, A.D. KOSHAL
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [1979] 3 S.C.R. 785 · 1979 INSC 91
- Also cited as
- AIR 1979 SC 1518
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
KRirnNA IYER, J.-This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in view of alleged illegal detention of a large number of persons under guise of the judicial proce'ss.
p. 785, margin H
Even \\ithout going into details, we are satisfied that petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 should be released on their own· bonds to the satisfaction of the trial ro:;rt subject to their reporting to the nearest poliee stati0n once every fortnight ~nd appearing in court whenever called upon to do so to take their trial. We direct accordingly. ·
p. 786, margin A
So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the State in its affidavit swenr that there is no such person in custody in connection with any case. This matter will be scrutinised further by the State so that it may satisfy it- ~elf th~! no one is in custody except under due process of law.
p. 786, margin A
This Court in its earlkr order dated March 5, 1979 has directed the State to file a statement containing particulars of the under-trial prisoners who have been confined in Jail for a period of over six months without their trials having commenced. Further details as to the ages of such ·under-trials, the dates from which they were confined and the offences with which they were 9harged were also called for. In the reply state-
p. 786, margin A
ment put in by the respondent, we find a larg~ number of cases where · detention for considerable periods, without the trial having even commenced, is being su!Iered by various persons. Criminal justice breaks dawn, at a point when expeditious frial is not attempted while the affected parties are languishing in jail. The Criminal Procedure Code in sections l67, 209 and 309 hns emphasised the importance o[ expeditious disposal of cases includ;ng investigation.s and trials. It is unfortunate, indeed pathetic, that there should have b~cn such considerable delay in investigations by the police in.utter disregard of the fact th:it a citizen Jias been deprived of his freedom on the ground that he is accused of an ofience. We do not approve of this course and breach of the rule of law and express our strong displeasure at this chaotic state of a!Iairs verging on wholesale breach of human rights guaranteed under ~e Cons.titution especially under Article 21 as interpreted by this Court.
p. 786, margin C
Even so we do not wish to pass any orders at the moment until more p"!ficulars ·are brought to our notice. It will suffice for the presentand counsel for the State assures us that any direction given by this Court will be promptly complied with-that' we direct the State to consent to release all persons who have been in custody for over six months and whose trials have not commenced or against whom charge sheets have not been laid., But make one exception in cases" where sections 302 and 395, IPC are involved. We direct that the State shall complete the investigation within two months from today ·where charge sheets have not been laid and further direct the Sessions Court concerned to dispose of the cases where charge sheets have been laid and commitment has been made, within six months from today. A report will be made to this Court at the end of six months from today by the State. We must emphatically record our view that there has been a self-condemnation in the statement put in by the State Govermnent in that in quite a number of cases which are not of a serious character and even in those which involve serious offences, investigations have been pending for nearly two years. There are cases where persons have been in custody for five years-a situation too ghastly for a civilised country like ours. We therefore draw lhe attention of the State Government to take a policy decision with a view to ensnre that accnsed persons, too indigent to set in motion the judicial process, do not suffer incarceration silently. The Govermnent will do well to comply wi1h the spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure especially in the matter of persons sought to be bound over for good behaviour, persons against whom summons cases are pending and persons who have been in custody for more than six months. Maybe this will involve a mass release from Jails, but Government has to pay homage in substance and reality to the provisions of the Constitution and the Code. With these observations, and directions, we dispose of this petition. N.V.K. Petition disposed ••
pp. 786–787, margin F