Supreme Court orders fresh HC hearing for a convict who complained of unfairness after a 20-year bail and reduced prison term

A man has complained of “unfair treatment” after spending 20 years on bail in a murder case, saying the lawyer who fought to reduce his life sentence to five years was appointed as a friend by the Jharkhand High Court behind his back.

While sending the man’s plea for a fresh hearing to the Supreme Court, a Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta said in a recent order that the case reminded them of the saying “give him an inch and he will ask for a mile”.

The man in question was sentenced to life imprisonment in the murder case by a court in November 2002. He challenged the decision in the Jharkhand High Court. His sentence was suspended for the duration of his bail period and he was later released on bail.

The convict did not bother to pursue his appeal for 20 years because he was released on bail. The appeal was listed for hearing for two decades.

Finally, in November 2024, the case came before the Division Bench of the Supreme Court. However, although the case was called for hearing many times, none came on behalf of the convict.

The Supreme Court eventually appointed an amicus curiae, a lawyer with 15 years of professional experience, to represent him. The friend was able to prove that the blow inflicted by the convict on the deceased was not intentional. This led the Supreme Court to downgrade the severity of the charges from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The life imprisonment sentence was reduced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment. The convict was instructed to surrender. This turn of events led the convict to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Supreme Court decision.

He argued that the amicus curiae was not appointed with his permission. Moreover, the friend did not discuss any of the points he made in his appeal before the Supreme Court; He believed this would ensure his release.

Justice Datta observed in the judgment that it was merely “common knowledge” that “when a convict receives an order from the appellate court suspending imprisonment and is consequently released on bail, he often neglects and/or does not cooperate with the court and prevents a speedy decision on his appeal by staying away from the proceedings to ensure that his liberty is not curtailed in case the appeal fails.”

The high court said most of these convicts have become untraceable. “The courts need to intervene with firm and strong hands against these convicts who are taking advantage of the privilege of bail and abusing this privilege,” Justice Datta said.

However, the top court found that the convict in the present case was not actually informed about the appointment of amicus curiae by the Supreme Court.

Justice Datta said the Jharkhand High Court had no obligation to inform the prisoner and there was nothing wrong with the Supreme Court’s “concern” to dispose of a long-pending appeal expeditiously.

“The appellant was enjoying the privilege of bail for twenty years without any concern about the outcome of his appeal… The appellant, despite being granted bail, holds himself responsible for not pursuing his appeal and persuading the High Court not to decide the appeal at an early date,” the High Court said.

Justice Datta, however, observed that it would be desirable to warn the prisoner about the appointment of the amicus.

The Supreme Court said, “From now on, when a court of appeal considers that it is appropriate to appoint a lawyer to a convict who does not have a lawyer, this court may also consider whether it is appropriate to notify the convict’s address from the registry.”

This implication will help the convict contact the amicus curiae regarding the case. If the convict does not accept the notification, it can be pasted on the outer wall of his residence. If neither the prisoner nor his lawyer appear at the hearing, the Supreme Court may continue to hear the appeal, satisfied that it has acted fairly.