Premium

Bombay High Court slams jail for not producing undertrial in court in 2 years

The Bombay High Court sought to know from Taloja Central Prison authorities how many physical or virtual court appearances for inmates are ensured per day and said whether producing an undertrial prisoner in a court was at the whims and fancies of the jail authorities. The high court on December 9 ordered Deputy Inspector General […]

Bombay HC slams jail for not producing undertrial in court in 2 yearsThe petitioner had raised primary grievance that he was produced before the magistrate beyond the statutory period of 24 hours.

The Bombay High Court sought to know from Taloja Central Prison authorities how many physical or virtual court appearances for inmates are ensured per day and said whether producing an undertrial prisoner in a court was at the whims and fancies of the jail authorities.

The high court on December 9 ordered Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Prisons to inquire into the issue and file a report as to why one of the accused in NDPS case was not taken to court through physical or virtual mode on 66 of 69 court hearing dates in the past two years.

“With the facility of video conferencing being made available in various jails, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that as far as Taloja Jail is concerned, the video conferencing facility is fully in operation. We fail to understand why there is no production of the accused almost over a period of two years and that really shook our conscience,” a division bench of Justice Bharati H Dangre and Shyam C Chandak noted in its December 9 order.

The bench was hearing a habeas corpus plea for securing release of petitioner Satly Thomas from “illegal custody” after his arrest on August 19, 2023 in a special case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The petitioner through advocate Prasannan Namboodiri had also sought quashing of subsequent remand orders and sought to be released on bail.

The petitioner had raised primary grievance that he was produced before the magistrate beyond the statutory period of 24 hours.

The court said the lapse in production of the accused was “grave” and was “inescapable” and it issued notice to the Director General of Police (Prisons) to look into the particular case. It sought report from the police authority after conducting necessary inquiry as to why the accused was not produced and whether “production of a person in judicial custody is at the whims and fancies of the Jail Superintendent.”

The court also sought a report from Taloja jail as to how may appearances on video conferencing are ensured every day and “whether there is a need for enhancing the facility so that such serious lapses do not reoccur.”

Story continues below this ad

On Monday, the HC noted that the DIG, Prisons had submitted the report. However, it said it required some clarification so that difficulties faced by police department related to courts in which accused are required to be produced can be resolved in systematic manner. The HC posted further hearing to December 16.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement