‘Appalling and Shocking’: SC Slams Maharashtra Over 55 Missed Productions, Grants Bail to Accused Jailed for 4 Yrs

The Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra said, "We are shocked at the conduct of the State authorities. The production of an accused before the Court is not only to ensure speedy trial but more importantly, as a safeguard so that the prisoner is not abused otherwise, and he comes directly in contact with the Court so as to air his grievances if any, against the authorities. We find that there has been grave infraction of such fundamental safeguard, which is appalling and shocking. We deprecate the same."

The petitioner had sought bail in FIR No. 0303 of 2021 registered at Vitthalwadi Police Station, Ulhasnagar, under IPC sections including 307, 326, 353 and 333. He was initially accused of stabbing both the deceased and a police constable along with co-accused Umesh @ Omi Bansilal Kishnani. However, the deceased later clarified in his statement that the petitioner and Umesh had only assaulted him with fists and kicks, and that another co-accused, Naresh, had inflicted the knife injury on the police constable. The injured constable also did not name the petitioner in his statement.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Sana Raees Khan submitted that the accused had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody for over four years. The identically placed co-accused, Umesh, had already been granted bail. Most strikingly, out of 85 trial dates, the petitioner was not produced before the court on 55 dates.

The Bench expressed strong displeasure at the State’s conduct, stating that producing an accused before court is not only essential for ensuring a speedy trial but also a vital safeguard against custodial abuse. The judges noted a “grave infraction” of fundamental rights and deprecated the lapse.

The Court directed the Director General of Prisons, Maharashtra, or the designated head of the prison department, to personally conduct an inquiry, fix responsibility and take action against those responsible.

The Bench warned that any attempt to shield erring officials would result in personal liability for the DG Prisons. A personal affidavit detailing the findings must be filed within two months, when the matter returns on February 3, 2026.

On merits, the Court found the petitioner entitled to bail and ordered his release, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.

Previously, in November, the Court had come down heavily on Maharashtra authorities over a case where an accused has been in jail for four years without even the framing of charges. Expressing strong displeasure, the Court had criticized the State for blaming co-accused for the delay in trial while failing to secure their presence before the trial court.