Join our WhatsApp Group
Breaking
Sunday, October 11, 2026 Jaipur Edition
Supreme Court of India
Criminal Law

Criminal Appeals Should Be Decided Within Five Years, Else Convicts May Get Bail: Supreme Court

Published: · NyayVidhan

"To have speedy justice is a fundamental right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution", the Supreme Court held, suspending the life sentence of an elderly woman whose 1997 appeal had not been listed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court (paras 1, 4, 5). It said convicts whose appeals are not decided within five years, for no fault of theirs, may be released on bail, and asked Chief Justices to set up regular benches (para 4).

Criminal Appeals Should Be Decided Within Five Years, Else Convicts May Get Bail: Supreme Court

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Granted
Smt. Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2001; cited as (2001) 4 SCC 355
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
22 March 2001
Bench
Justices K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi
Relevant Acts & Sections
Constitution of India — Article 21; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal)
Final Outcome

The appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside; the conviction and sentence were kept in abeyance and the appellant was to be released on bail on a personal bond with two sureties to the trial court's satisfaction (para 6).

Key holdings

  1. Prolonged delay in deciding trials and appeals, for no fault of the accused, gives the accused a right to apply for bail (para 4).
  2. High Courts should dispose of criminal appeals, especially of jailed convicts, within a period not exceeding five years (para 4).
  3. If an appeal is not decided within five years for no fault of the convict, bail may be granted, excluding time for preparing the record and delay attributable to the convict (para 4).
  4. Age, infirmity and the welfare of a dependent child were taken into account in suspending the sentence, without comment on the merits (para 5).

Brief Facts

The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on 27 February 1997 for the murder of her daughter-in-law; her appeal in the Madhya Pradesh High Court had not been listed, and the High Court rejected her plea for bail on grounds of infirmity and old age (para 1). On a report called for by the Supreme Court, the High Court's Registrar said that criminal appeals of 1989 and 1990 were then being heard and her appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future unless early hearing was allowed (para 2).

Court's Findings

Even an application for early hearing gave no assurance of an early hearing (para 3). Prolonged delay in disposing of trials and appeals, "for no fault of the accused, confers a right upon him to apply for bail" (para 4). Since an appeal is a statutory right, the trial is deemed to continue during its pendency (para 4). High Courts must find ways to dispose of criminal appeals, particularly of jailed accused, within a period not exceeding five years; if an appeal is not decided within five years for no fault of the convict, the convict may be released on bail on suitable conditions, excluding time for preparing the record and delay attributable to the convict or the defence, though special circumstances may still justify refusal (para 4). Without commenting on the merits, the Court considered her age and infirmity, and that a grandchild she had cared for in jail until he turned three would otherwise be deprived of her care (para 5).

Legal Principle

Speedy justice is a fundamental right under Article 21. Where a criminal appeal is not decided within five years for no fault of the convict, the convict may be released on bail pending appeal, after excluding delay attributable to the convict, unless special circumstances justify refusal (para 4).
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 2 min read
Decided: March 22, 2001 Justices K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi
PDF
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Popular: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt