LI Network
Published on: December 15, 2023 at 15:54 IST
The Bombay High Court took suo moto cognizance of the recurring issue of undertrial prisoners not being produced before the courts at various stages.
Justice Bharati Dangre addressed this concern during the hearing of a bail application filed by Tribhuvansingh Raghunath Yadav, an accused in a forgery case, who was not presented before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Andheri on 23 occasions, either physically or through video conferencing (VC).
The court, while disposing of Yadav’s bail application (Bail Application No. 1836 of 2023), reclassified it as a ‘suo motu application.’
Justice Dangre observed, “Since the orders… pertain to the larger issue of production of under-trial prisoners before the appropriate courts at various stages, the Application is now titled as ‘suo motu application,’ and the registry shall allot a new number to the same.”
During the proceedings, Additional Public Prosecutor SR Agarkar presented a Government Resolution dated November 28, 2023, issued by the Home Department, approving Rs. 5,33,16,753/- for the installation of a Video Conferencing facility and the acquisition of necessary infrastructure, including cameras, amplifiers, audio interfaces, cables, etc.
The court directed that the Government Resolution be brought to the attention of the Public Prosecutor and the Advocate General, ensuring that the sanctioned amount is utilized before March 31, 2024.
This directive aligns with the court’s earlier instruction on November 10, 2023, urging the State Government to allocate funds for expanding VC facilities in jails and courts across the state.
Amicus Curie Satyavrat Joshi, after visiting Thane Jail to assess facilities for producing accused persons in various courts, reported satisfaction. A comprehensive report, co-authored with APP YM Nakhwa, is expected to be submitted by December 20, 2023.
In the context of Section 437(6) of the CrPC, which allows release on bail if the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence isn’t concluded within 60 days, Advocate Vinod Kashid, representing the applicant, sought permission to withdraw the bail application.
The court granted the request and disposed of the bail application, emphasizing the larger issues related to the production of under-trial prisoners.
Case Title: Tribhuvansingh Raghunath Yadav v. State of Maharashtra
