‘Double Standards’: SC Questions Maharashtra Over Opposing Bail Pleas Amid Trial Delays

The Supreme Court has questioned the Maharashtra government for opposing bail pleas while failing to ensure speedy trials, highlighting the case of a foreign national who has remained in jail for over four years with only two of the 45 witnesses examined.

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu on Friday heard the bail plea of Kelvin Chindozie Okoro, a foreign national booked by Maharashtra Police in a 2022 murder case under Sections 302, 364, 201, 149, 147 and 146 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 14 and 14(b) of the Foreigners Act and Section 12(1)(a)(b) of the Passport Act, Live Law and Bar & Bench report.

Bail opposition vs trial delays: SC raises tough questions

Okoro was arrested on May 7, 2022. His first bail application was rejected by the Bombay High Court on merits. He later moved a second bail plea citing a change in circumstances after a witness failed to identify him as one of the assailants. The plea was rejected, though the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.

During the hearing, Maharashtra’s counsel informed the Bench that two witnesses had been examined in four years. Justice Amanullah questioned the State’s approach, asking, “Are you doing a favour? Chargesheet must have been filed in 90 days, otherwise he would have been released on bail. So three months out of four years plus...for four years after chargesheet, nothing? Whose responsibility it is?”

The judge also referred to a similar matter involving Punjab, where the court had imposed a ₹50,000 personal cost on a Senior Superintendent of Police for delays. The cost was kept in abeyance pending the State’s reply.

“I issued one notice in Punjab...I am going to pass an order imposing ₹50,000 cost and start with Maharashtra now...every day Maharashtra is coming...everyday! What is this happening?” Justice Amanullah said.

‘Nothing on the ground’: Court flags State’s failure on liberty

Maharashtra’s counsel said the cases were old and that there was improvement in the State prosecution system. “I know our fault, and we are trying to improve,” he said, adding that the State had achieved almost 100% presence of accused during trials.

However, Justice Amanullah said the State was repeatedly failing in matters concerning personal liberty. “Maharashtra is full of it...everyday we find that Maharashtra is in default. Three years, four years, five years. Big, big statutes...and liberty of a person. Just [...] opposing bail but nothing on the ground. Double standards of the State...we will expose you before the public,” he said.

The Bench also noted that Okoro was a foreign national. The judge said he did not “deserve” bail, adding, “You come to a foreign land and you do this? How dare you do it in India?”

The court, however, refused to grant bail to Okoro at this stage. “We have considered. No case for bail has been made out at this stage,” the Bench said.

While dismissing the petition, the court kept the matter pending to consider the Maharashtra government’s counter-affidavit on the delay in the trial.

The order noted, “The petition stands dismissed. However, we notice a disturbing aspect that is, the petitioner is in custody for over 4 years and out of 45 witnesses in the trial, only 2 have been examined.”

The Bench observed that while the State opposed bail applications “tooth and nail”, it failed to discharge its duty of conducting trials without undue delay.

The court directed Maharashtra to submit a specific policy explaining how it plans to deal with trial delays so that an accused is not deprived of liberty due to reasons beyond their control and because of lapses by the prosecution.

The matter has been listed along with the Punjab case on July 24.