The Supreme Court mentioned many of those convicts change into untraceable. File image
| Photo Credit: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar
A person complained of “unfair treatment” after spending 20 years out on bail in a homicide case, saying the lawyer who fought to cut back his life imprisonment to a five-year prison term was appointed by the Jharkhand High Court as amicus curiae behind his again.
A Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta, whereas sending the person’s attraction for a fresh hearing earlier than the High Court, has mentioned, in a latest judgment, that the case reminded them of the expression “give him an inch and he will ask for a mile”.
The man in query was sentenced to life imprisonment within the homicide case by a trial court docket in November 2002. He appealed the choice within the Jharkhand High Court. His sentence was suspended throughout the pendency of the bail and he was subsequently granted bail.
For 20 years, the convict didn’t trouble to comply with up on his attraction as he loved bail. His attraction was listed for hearing for twenty years.
Finally, in November 2024, the case got here up earlier than a Division Bench of the High Court. However, none appeared for the convict even supposing the case was repeatedly known as for hearing.
The High Court ultimately appointed an amicus curiae, a lawyer of 15 years’ skilled standing, to symbolize him. The amicus was capable of show that the blow which the convict gave the deceased was not intentional. This led the High Court to cut back the gravity of the costs from homicide to culpable murder not amounting to homicide. The punishment of life sentence was reduced to a rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The convict was directed to give up. This flip of occasions prompted the convict to attraction the Supreme Court towards the High Court determination.
He argued that the amicus curiae was not appointed along with his permission. Besides, the amicus didn’t argue any of the factors he had made in his attraction earlier than the High Court, which, he believed, would have secured him his launch.
Justice Datta drily noticed within the judgment that it was however “common knowledge” that “once a convict obtains an order from the appellate court suspending the sentence of imprisonment and is, consequently, released on bail, more often than not, he neglects and/or fails to cooperate with the court and impedes an expeditious decision on his appeal by staying away from the proceedings with a view to ensure that his liberty is not curtailed, if the appeal were to fail”.
The apex court docket mentioned many of those convicts change into untraceable. “These convicts, enjoying the concession of bail and misusing it, need to be dealt with firm and strong hands by the courts,” Justice Datta mentioned.
However, the apex court docket discovered that the convict within the current case was certainly not knowledgeable concerning the appointment of the amicus curiae by the High Court.
Justice Datta mentioned the Jharkhand High Court was underneath no obligation to tell the convict and there was nothing unsuitable within the “anxiety” of the High Court to listen to a long-pending attraction expeditiously.
“Appellant was enjoying the concession of bail for two decades without being in any manner concerned about the fate of his appeal… Appellant, while enlarged on bail, has himself to blame for not keeping track of his appeal and by not persuading the High Court to decide the appeal at an early date,” the Supreme Court famous.
Nevertheless, Justice Datta noticed that it might have been fascinating if the convict had been alerted concerning the amicus’s appointment.
“Henceforth, whenever an appellate court considers it desirable to appoint an amicus to represent a convict whose counsel is absent, such court may also consider the desirability of issuing a notice from the registry to the address of the convict,” the Supreme Court directed.
This intimation would assist the convict contact the amicus curiae concerning the case. If the convict, however, refuses to just accept discover, it could possibly be caught on the outer wall of his place of handle. If neither the convict nor his counsel flip up for the hearing, the High Court may proceed to listen to the attraction, content material that it had acted pretty.
Published – March 19, 2026 01:51 pm IST
