RAGHUBIR SINGH & OTHERS ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR

RAGHUBIR SINGH & OTHERS ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions holding that there was no unfair delay so as to violate the right to speedy trial; the High Court was directed to dispose of the revision and expedite trial. The Supreme Court held that it cannot itself examine sufficiency of evidence for framing charges; procedural errors urged do not at this stage warrant interference. Orders for bail under s.167(2) CrPC do not lapse by filing of chargesheet or remand; only cancellation as specified in statute suffices.

Parties
Petitioner: Raghubir Singh & Others; Respondent: State of Bihar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 September 1986
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petitions and Writ Petitions / Against Rejection of Bail and for Quashing Proceedings Before Special Judge
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Speedy Trial, Bail, Jurisdiction of Special Courts, Trial Procedure, Conspiracy
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Procedure Right to Speedy Trial Bail Jurisdiction of Special Courts Trial Procedure Conspiracy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raghubir Singh & Others

Petitioner

State of Bihar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petitions and Writ Petitions / Against Rejection of Bail and for Quashing Proceedings Before Special Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Supreme Court can interfere with the framing of charges by Trial Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the right to speedy trial under Article 21 has been violated by delay in investigation and trial
  3. 3 Whether the creation of Special Judge's Court and transfer of case by executive authority violates rule of law

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions holding that there was no unfair delay so as to violate the right to speedy trial; the High Court was directed to dispose of the revision and expedite trial. The Supreme Court held that it cannot itself examine sufficiency of evidence for framing charges; procedural errors urged do not at this stage warrant interference. Orders for bail under s.167(2) CrPC do not lapse by filing of chargesheet or remand; only cancellation as specified in statute suffices.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • High Court directed to expedite disposal of criminal revision petition and ensure expeditious trial.
  • Nothing said by Supreme Court to be construed as expression on merits of the case.