The Bombay High Court has taken suo motu (on its own) cognisance of the issue of non-production of the undertrial prisoners before the appropriate courts at various stages.
Inadequate Video Conferencing (VC) Facility in Prisons & Lower Courts
The high court had flagged the issue of inadequate VC facility in prisons and lower courts in the state while taking up the issue of non-production of undertrial prisoners before courts.
The issue had come to light during the hearing of bail plea of one Tribhuvansing Yadav. His advocate Vinod Kashid submitted that his bail application in the lower court was adjourned on 23 occasions as he was not produced before the court either physically or through VC. The court had then appointed advocate Satyavrat Joshi as amicus curiae (friend of court) to assist the court.
During the hearing on Wednesday, additional public prosecutor (APP) SR Agarkar informed the court that the government had sanctioned Rs 5,33,16,753 for the video conference facility and the amount would be used for purchase of the necessary infrastructure, which would include the cameras, amplifiers, audio interface, cables, etc along with its installation.
Emphasis on Timely Implementation
Justice Dangre has emphasised that the GR be brought to the notice of the Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar and Advocate General Birendra Saraf so as to ensure that the amount sanctioned is expended before March 31, 2024.
As far as Yadav’s bail plea was concerned, his advocate Kashid pointed out Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which stated that if the trial in a case is not concluded before a magistrate within sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, then the accused can be released on bail.
Kashid said that charges were framed against Yadav on August 28, 2023 and the trial was fixed for recording of evidence and the first witness of the prosecution is in the dock.
Withdrawal of Bail Plea and Court's Guidance
The court allowed Kashid to withdraw the bail plea and approach the magistrate concerned saying: “it is open for the accused to approach the Magistrate to secure his release on bail, as the trial is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date of taking evidence.”
The court then converted the plea into a suo motu plea to monitor the implementation of its orders with regard to VC facility. “However, since the orders which are passed by me appointing the Amicus pertain to the larger issue of production of the 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,” Justice Dangre added.
.jpg)
