THE Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has sharply criticised the prosecution for its failure to take necessary steps for eight months, despite the examination of 22 witnesses in the child kidnapping case. While allowing the bail application of the accused, Justice Urmila JoshiPhalke also reminded, “It is the duty of every Court to protect the right of the accused as far as the aspect of speedy trial is concerned.”

 

 The Court also directed to communicate the order to the Director of the prosecution.The case is based on the kidnapping of a four-yearold boy, Nayan Mukesh Luniya, who was abducted on February 17, 2021 in Amravati. The crime was registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Accused Israr Mobin Muktar Shaikh, arrested on April 24, 2021, and has been in custody since then. His defense lawyer Adv Rajendra Daga argued that the trial was being unduly delayed, with no steps taken by the prosecution to secure the presence of the remaining witnesses for cross-examination. The roznama, or case diary, indicated a total lack of initiative from the prosecution, despite numerous court dates in which the prosecutor failed to request any action to bring witnesses to court. In her detailed order, Justice

Joshi-Phalke pointed out that “22 witnesses are already examined by the prosecution but within eight months, no steps are taken by the prosecution.” She noted that, based on the court’s own records, there had been no effort by the prosecution or any direction from the court to secure the presence of the remaining witnesses, despite multiple opportunities. The judge further criticised the “gross inaction” on the part of the concerned prosecutor. The court stressed that the responsibility to protect the accused’s constitutional right to a speedy trial lay not only with the prosecutor but also with the judiciary. Justice Joshi-Phalke stressed the court’s duty to actively ensure the accused’s right to a fair and prompt trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Justice Joshi-Phalke also referenced the right to a speedy trial in several recent Supreme Court decisions, which have underlined that delays in trial, especially when caused by prosecutorial inaction, could result in an infringement of an accused person’s rights. In particular, the court cited recent rulings in Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh v State of Maharashtra and Sheikh Javed Iqubal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Supreme Court granted bail due to similar delays in trial proceedings. Finally, the court granted bail to the accused with several restrictions.