Read Time: 02 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has sought information from the state government regarding the availability of video conferencing facilities in each magistrate court in Mumbai and its suburbs.

This order was passed in view of an affidavit by the Additional Director General of Police & Inspector General (Prisons & Correctional Services) of the state government explaining why a bail applicant was not produced on various hearing dates.

During a bail plea hearing on September 15, the state prisons department's affidavit stated that the accused was not produced before the trial court on certain dates due to the absence of a production warrant.

Court observed that this situation required a solution and appointed Advocate Satyavrat Joshi as amicus curiae to assist in finding an alternative for the production of accused persons.

Justice Bharati H Dangre directed Public Prosecutor Aruna S Pai to inquire whether video conferencing facilities are available in Mumbai's magistrate courts and prisons.

This move aims to address the repeated grievances about accused persons not being produced before the court on scheduled dates. The court will hear the matter on October 5 to further discuss the issue.

Case Title: Tribhuvansing Raghunath Yadav Vs. The State of Maharashtra