LI Network
Published on: 28 August 2023 at 16:12 IST
The Allahabad High Court recently emphasized that the persistent failure of the State’s police to effectively serve summonses and execute court-ordered coercive measures to secure the presence of witnesses in criminal trials infringes upon the fundamental rights of the accused, including their right to a speedy trial and timely access to bail.
The Court’s observation, made during the consideration of a bail application in the case of Bhanwar Singh v. State, revealed that this issue is a recurring theme in the criminal justice system of Uttar Pradesh, frequently surfacing in bail applications before the High Court.
Justice Ajay Bhanot, while granting bail in the mentioned case, expressed concern over the delayed progress of a criminal trial due to the police’s inability to carry out summonses and coercive measures as directed by the trial courts.
The Court remarked, this situation led to unjust and prolonged imprisonment of individuals without their fault.
The Court underscored that this issue is not an isolated one but a larger problem that contributes to the delay and inefficiency of the criminal justice process.
It observed that prisoners, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds grappling with poverty and legal illiteracy, endure prolonged incarceration due to the police’s failure to ensure the appearance of witnesses, which goes against orders issued by trial courts.
This systemic problem, the Court noted, obstructs the proper administration of the right to bail and undermines public trust in the justice system.
The judge recognized that such non-compliance with court orders constitutes both statutory offenses and contempt of court. However, initiating contempt proceedings for every such instance would burden the police and the State with excessive litigation and resource depletion.
To address this systemic issue, the Court suggested designating specific police officers at various levels with the responsibility of ensuring witness appearance in court. This approach, the Court posited, would be effective if capable officers were selected for these roles and empowered to coordinate with police forces at different levels.
Furthermore, the Court asserted that prolonged imprisonment due to trial delays violates the accused’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It also emphasized that both the police and the State must be accountable for this situation, urging the establishment or revision of an effective system that holds the police department responsible for its duties related to witness management.