Time-bound investigation must be ordered only in cases of undue delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has emphasised that courts must refrain from ordering time-bound investigations in criminal cases unless the material on record demonstrates undue delay or stagnation [State of UP vs Mohd Arshad Khan]

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh said that the courts have consistently recognized that directing a time-bound investigation must remain the exception rather than the norm.

The Court explained that investigative process is "at times straight, at other times one of lots of twists, turn and recalibrations and in yet others, frustratingly round-about like".

Thus, it called for allowing investigating agencies a reasonable degree of latitude. 

"Timelines are not drawn by the Court to be followed by the investigators/the executive right from the beginning, for that would clearly amount to stepping on the toes of the latter. Timelines are therefore imposed at a point where not doing so would have adverse consequences i.e., there is material on record demonstrating undue delays, stagnation, or the like. In sum, timelines are imposed reactively and not prophylactically," the Court said.

The Court further explained that there can be delays in the investigation due to various reasons - witnesses may begin to hesitate or completely resile from their statement or the documentary evidence may turn out to be unusable.

It also noted that legal proceedings frequently intersect with the investigation and affect its pace and direction.

"Applications for anticipatory bail, regular bail, or the like can result in temporary pauses or changes in strategy. Courts may call for further investigation, ask for clarification on specific aspects or even direct a change of the investigating officer. Each such intervention requires the investigating agency to revisit its work and sometimes take a fresh path altogether," the Court said.

However, the Court also stressed that the right to speedy trial necessarily includes timely and diligent investigation. Undue delay prejudices not only the accused, whose liberty and reputation remain under a cloud, but also the victim and society at large, the Court observed.

Therefore, it said that challenge lies in balancing the practical realities of investigation with the constitutional mandate of conducting criminal proceedings with reasonable promptitude and care.

"It is this balancing role that the judiciary plays," the Court added.

The Court made these observations while dealing with the appeals filed by State of Uttar Pradesh against three similarly-worded judgments of Allahabad High Court on petitions challenging an FIR related to alleged forgery and misuse of arms licenses.

The High Court had directed completion of investigation within 90 days and ordered that the accused should not be arrested till the trial court takes cognizance of the offences against them.

In its judgment dated December 19, the top court held that the High Court was not justified in ordering a time-bound investigation. On the issue of protection from arrest, it similarly opined that the High Court had erred.

Thus, it allowed the State’s appeals and set aside the High Court judgments.

"Interim protection in favour of the respondents herein shall continue to operate for the next two weeks, after which, all actions as permissible in law will follow," the Court ordered.

[Read Judgment]