Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has taken suo moto cognizance of the non-production of under-trial prisoners before various courts and the utilization of funds for installing video conferencing facilities across courts to facilitate the appearance of under-trial prisoners.

The single-judge bench of the high court presided over by Justice Bharathi Dangre was hearing a bail application from Tribhuvansing Raghunath Yadav, represented by Advocate Vinod Kashid.

The applicant claimed that his bail application had been adjourned 23 times by the trial court because he was not produced before the court either physically or virtually.

During the previous hearing, the high court observed that physically producing undertrial prisoners was a cumbersome process. The authorities were advised to use video conferencing for presenting undertrial prisoners instead.

On December 13, the Additional Public Prosecutor SR Agarkar informed the bench that the state government had passed a resolution on November 28, 2023, allocating a sum of Rs. 5,33,16,753 for the installation of the Video Conferencing facility. This budget includes the purchase of necessary infrastructure such as cameras, amplifiers, audio interface, cables, etc., along with their installation.

In its order, the high court stated that the Government Resolution should be brought to the notice of the Public Prosecutor and the Advocate General to ensure that the funds are utilized by March 31, 2024.

During the hearing, the amicus curiae, Satyavrat Joshi, after visiting Thane Jail, expressed satisfaction with the facilities available in the jail for the production of accused persons in different courts. He informed the bench that he would submit the report by December 20.

Concerning the application being heard by the bench, the court was informed that charges were framed against the applicant on November 28.

The bench then said that it was open for the applicant to approach the Magistrate to secure his release on bail, as the trial is not concluded within period of 60 days from the first date of taking evidence in the case and if the accused is in custody during the whole of the said period.

Therefore, the bench allowed the applicant to withdraw his application.

The high court retained the broader matter of producing undertrial prisoners through video conferencing facilities and directed the application to be titled Suo Moto.

“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,” the order reads.

Case title: Tribhuvansingh Raghunath Yadav vs State of Maharashtra