Supreme Court directs CBI to complete investigation within two months in Jat Agitation Case: Dilawar vs. State of Haryana (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 1, 2018. The Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of delays in criminal investigations, particularly when an accused is in custody. Can an investigating agency take an indefinite amount of time to complete an investigation, especially when the accused is in custody? The Supreme Court, in this case, set a timeline for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to complete its investigation and also directed the Union of India to come up with a mechanism to ensure speedy investigation. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Indu Malhotra.

Case Background

The case originates from an FIR registered on February 27, 2016, at the Urban Estate Police Station, Rohtak, concerning mob violence during the ‘Jat agitation.’ The petitioner, Dilawar, was arrested on April 20, 2016, and has been in custody since then. Initially, the state police investigated the case and filed a chargesheet on May 27, 2016. However, on September 30, 2016, the investigation was transferred to the CBI, along with several other cases. The court proceedings were also moved from regular courts to the CBI Court at Panchkula. The petitioner’s bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, on July 12, 2016, and subsequently by the High Court on December 2, 2016. The High Court noted that the petitioner appeared to be a leader of the mob involved in arson, loot, and mischief, including the burning of a Cabinet Minister’s house. The Supreme Court, while hearing the matter against the High Court order, did not grant bail but directed that the trial be concluded within six months. However, the CBI sought more time, leading to the current application.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner’s bail application was initially dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, on July 12, 2016. Subsequently, the High Court also rejected the bail application on December 2, 2016, observing that the petitioner appeared to be a leader of the mob. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the court did not grant bail but directed that the trial be completed within six months. However, the CBI sought more time to complete the investigation, leading to the present application for modification of the earlier order.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily discusses the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court also refers to Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which limits detention by a police officer beyond 24 hours, and Section 167(1) of the Cr.P.C., which provides for production of the accused before a Magistrate if investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. provides for default bail if the investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days, depending on the nature of the offense. Section 167(5) of the Cr.P.C. states that in summons cases, if the investigation is not concluded within six months, the same has to be stopped unless continuation is found necessary.

The Supreme Court also refers to its earlier judgments which have emphasized the importance of speedy trial as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These cases include:

• Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248]
• Hussainara Khatoon (I) versus Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81]
• Abdul Rehman Antulay versus R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225]
• P. Ramachandra Rao versus State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 578]

Arguments

The CBI, in its application, stated that it took over the investigation on October 6, 2016, and that the task was voluminous and time-consuming. It argued that the trial could not commence until the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. is filed, which would take a long time. The CBI did not provide any specific details on the progress of the investigation or the reasons for the delay.

The Supreme Court noted that even if the CBI commenced investigation on October 6, 2016, one and a half years had already passed. The Court also observed that there was no indication of the progress made by the CBI or the reasons for the delay. The Court emphasized that no investigating agency can take an unduly long time to complete an investigation and that speedy investigation is a part of the fundamental right to a fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the CBI should be given more time to complete the investigation, considering the delay and the fact that the accused is in custody.

Additionally, the court also considered the broader issue of the need for timelines for completing investigations and having an in-house oversight mechanism to ensure accountability.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the authorities to emphasize the importance of speedy trial and investigation as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also relied on the provisions of the Cr.P.C. to emphasize the time limits on detention and investigation.

• The Supreme Court cited Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248]* to underscore that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to a fair and speedy trial.
• The Court also cited Hussainara Khatoon (I) vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81]*, Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225]*, and P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 578]* to reiterate the constitutional mandate for a speedy trial, which encompasses a speedy investigation.
• The Court referred to Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. to highlight the legal restriction on police detention beyond 24 hours without a magistrate’s authorization.
• The Court referred to Section 167(1) of the Cr.P.C. to highlight the legal restriction on police detention beyond 24 hours without a magistrate’s authorization.
• The Court referred to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. to emphasize the provision for default bail if investigation is not completed within the prescribed time.
• The Court referred to Section 167(5) of the Cr.P.C. to emphasize that in summons cases, investigation must be concluded within six months, unless continuation is found necessary.
• The court also relied on Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam [(2017) 15 SCC 67]* to reiterate the need for timelines for completing investigations.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily concerned with the delay in the investigation, especially since the accused had been in custody for over two years. The Court emphasized that speedy investigation is a part of the fundamental right to a fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also noted that there was no indication of the progress made by the CBI in the investigation. The court also highlighted the need for a mechanism to ensure that investigations are not unduly delayed and that accountability is fixed at different levels.

The Court’s decision was influenced by the fact that the accused had been in custody for a long time without any significant progress in the investigation. The Court’s emphasis on the legal aspects of the right to a speedy trial also played a significant role in its decision.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of speedy investigation as a part of the right to a fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Investigating agencies cannot take an unduly long time to complete investigations, especially when the accused is in custody.
• The Court has directed the CBI to complete the investigation within two months.
• The Union of India has been directed to develop a mechanism to ensure speedy investigations and fix accountability for delays.
• This judgment highlights the need for timely completion of investigations to ensure fair and speedy trials.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The CBI must complete the investigation within the next two months.
• The trial should commence by July 10, 2018, and be concluded by the end of the year.
• The petitioner, if still in custody, can move a bail application before the trial court.
• The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) must interact with all central and state investigating agencies to develop timelines for completing investigations and an in-house oversight mechanism.
• The MHA must submit a report on pending investigations beyond one year and an action plan to complete them.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that speedy investigation is a facet of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and investigating agencies cannot take an unduly long time to complete the investigation. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that the right to a speedy trial includes the right to a speedy investigation. The court has also emphasized the need for timelines for completing investigations and an in-house oversight mechanism to ensure accountability.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dilawar vs. State of Haryana is a significant step towards ensuring timely justice in criminal cases. By setting a deadline for the CBI to complete its investigation and directing the Union of India to develop a mechanism for speedy investigations, the Court has reaffirmed the fundamental right to a speedy trial. This judgment serves as a reminder that delays in investigation can have a significant impact on the rights of the accused and that investigating agencies must be held accountable for their actions.