Holding

The Court held that adivasi accused languishing without trial must be released on personal bond or bail according to the stage of the case, that those with no proceedings for three years be released under Section 169, and that Section 144 should be applied only in accordance with established jurisprudence.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard writ petitions highlighting that a large number of adivasi persons were being detained in jails without trial for petty offences. The Court observed that many cases were pending for years, violating the right to speedy trial. It directed that adivasi accused facing sentences of seven years or more be released on personal bond pending merit disposal, and that those whose trials had already commenced but did not fall in that category be released on bail unless special circumstances existed. Further, any accused for whom no proceedings had been taken within three years of the FIR must be released under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and cases with no charge‑sheet or completed investigation for three years should be released subject to fresh reinvestigation and magistrate permission. The Court also warned against the misuse of Section 144 CrPC, referring to principles laid down in 1983 (4) SCC 161.

Issues considered

Whether adivasi accused facing sentences of seven years or more should be released on personal bond pending merit disposal.
Whether accused in cases where trial has started but does not fall under the seven‑year category are entitled to bail on personal bond.
Whether an accused with no proceedings within three years of the FIR must be released under Section 169 CrPC.
Whether cases lacking a charge‑sheet or completed investigation for three years should be released subject to reinvestigation and magistrate permission.
Whether Section 144 CrPC can be misused and what principles govern its proper application.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 144, s. 169

Subjects

right to speedy trialpre‑trial detentionadivasi rightssection 144 CrPCsection 169 CrPCbailpersonal bondwrit petitionarticle 32prison overcrowding

Judgment

A
1'16
MATHEW AREEPARMTIL & ORS.
v.
STATE OF BlHAR AND ORS. •
B
September 20, 1984
'i"
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.J
Code o/Crimt'nal Procedure, 1973, s. 144 ands. 169.
c
The writ petitioners brought to the notice of the Court thai a very large
number of people had been languishing in jails without trial for petty
offences.

Disposing of the writ petitions, •

D HELD: (I) In all cases instituted against the adivasi accused involving
s:!ntence of 7 years or more, they will be entitL:d to be released on considera-
tion of merit bY the court on executing a personal bond. These cases will be
disposed of on merits expeditiously. [777E] •
(2) In 1he other cases where trial has already started and which do
not com~ whhin the first c;J.tegory, indicated above, the accused VYill be
E entitled to be released 0'.1 bail on executing a personal bond in the absence
of very special circumstances. [777f-]

(3) In cases where no proceedings at all have taken place in regard to '
the accused within 3 yeirs from the date of the lodging oi FIR, the accused
should be released forthwith under section 169 Cr. P.C. [777G]
{4) If there are other cas~s in which neither change sheet have been
F subrllitted nor investigation has b.-!en completed during the last three years.
the accus ::d concerned should be released forthwith subject to reinvestigation
of the said cases on fresh facts and they shall not be arrested without the per-
mission of the Magistrate and where permission is given they would be
released by the Magistrate on execution of personal bund. [777H; 778A-B)

(5) Section 144 Cr. P.C. should not be misused and orders under this
G Section should be passed in the light of principles laid down in 1983 \4) SCC
161 at page 169.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 371-75 ,,
of 1983.

(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Govind Mukhoty and Ms. Kamini Jaiswa/ for the petitioners. ·•
M:. AREEPARMt1t v. BJ!IAR (Faza/ Ali, J.)

L.N, Sinha, K.G. Bhagat, Addi. Sol. General, R. N. Poddar, A

P.P. Singh and D. Goburdhan for Respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered by
•
FAZAL ALI, J. We have heard cousel for the parties at length B
and have also gone through the Reports and. documents filed by
the petitioners. In view of the fact that the counsel for the
respondents are more or less agreed . to the order we propose to
pass, it is not necessary to go into further details.

The facts as gleaned from the. Reports and documents
reveal a most shocking state of affairs in the region in question.
, It seems that a very large number of people have been languishing
in jails without trial for petty offences. Though most of the
said people are alleged to have been released but the main
infirmity has not been cured. Without going into further details, D
we dispose of the petitions in terms of the following Order :
•
u(l) In all cases instituted against the adivasi accused
concerned which involve sentence of 7 years or more,
they will be entitled to be released on consideration
, of merit by the court concerned only on executing a E
perso.oal bond. These cases will be disposed of on
merits expeditiously.

(2) In the other cases where trial has already started
and which do not come within the first category, J.!
indicated above, the accused will be entitled to be
released on bail on. executing a personal bond in the
absence ~f very special circumstances.

(3) In the cases where no proceedings at all have taken
place in regard to the accused within 3 years from
, the date of the lodging of FIR, the accused should G
be released forthwith under section I69 Cr. P.C.

(4) If there are other cases in which neither chargesheet
have been submitted nor investigation has been
completed during the last three years, the accused
H
778 SUPkEMB COURT Ii.EPORTS (i98S) l S.C.R
A concerned should be released forthwith subject to
reinvestigation of the said case on fresh facts and
they shall not be arrested without the permission of
the Magistrate and where permission is given they
would be released by the Magistrate on execution of •
personal bond.

We would like to observe that Section 144 Cr. P.C. should not be
misused and orders under this Section should be passed in the light
of principles laid down in 1983 (4) sec 161 at page 169.
•
c
At the same time, we would like to warn Adivasi accused
that they should not take the law in their own hands by shooting
or using their arrows on Government Officers or other forest
officers. If they have any complaint they can move the appro-
•
D ' priate authority and get suitable orders from him.

•
H.S.K.

•