The Supreme Court has recently granted bail to a 75-year-old man, convicted in a 1983 rape and murder case, while taking note that it took the trial 40 years to conclude.
Noting the “peculiar feature” of the case, the top court asked the Calcutta High Court to give “out of turn priority” to the disposal of the man’s appeal against his conviction. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal stated that normally, the top court should not issue a direction to a constitutional court or any other court to fix a schedule to decide a case. The bench stated in its order passed on September 25, “However, this case has a peculiar feature that the trial has taken forty years to conclude. We, therefore, request the high court to give out of turn priority to the disposal of the appeal in accordance with law.”
The apex court heard an appeal filed by the man challenging the May 17 order of the high court, which rejected his prayer for bail.
While noting that the appellant was the maternal uncle of the victim, the high court stated, in view of the material on record and the gravity of the offence, “we don’t consider it appropriate to suspend the sentence of the appellant”. In its order, the high court noted that the case involves the brutal rape and murder of a girl who was found strangulated in a room.
While pronouncing its order, the top court stated that the incident took place in 1983 and there are “reasons and reasons why the trial was delayed”. It stated, “The trial came to an end with the order of conviction of the appellant on April 21, 2023. The appellant was throughout on bail. The present age of the appellant is about 75 years. The appeal before the high court has been admitted for a final hearing.”
The bench stated that considering the delay in the disposal of the trial, the fact that the occurrence was in 1983, and the present age of the appellant, “he deserves to be enlarged on bail, pending the final disposal of the appeal before the high court on appropriate stringent terms and conditions”.
While setting aside the May 17 order of the high court, the top court requested that to fix appropriate, stringent terms and conditions on which the appellant shall be enlarged on bail pending the final disposal of his appeal.
After the bench was informed that the appellant is a member of the bar, it stated that he was expected to ensure that the apex court’s order was scrupulously implemented and the appeal was disposed of expeditiously.