Accused Not Produced For Hearings Until Issuance Of Production Warrant By Authorities: Bombay HC Directs Inquiry Into Availability Of VC Facilities In Courts

The Bombay High Court while observing that the accused are not produced on several court hearings before the Court directed the Amicus Curie and other counsels to ascertain whether the video conferencing facility is available to each Magistrate.

The Court noted that the Applicant was not presented before the Trial Court until the Magistrate issued a warrant against him.

Justice Bharati Dangre observed, “Another solution which Ms.Pai as Public Prosecutor offered is about production of the accused persons through video conferencing and she shall obtain necessary instructions as to whether such facility is available in all Jails and whether it is in working condition and Mr.Kashid as well as Mr.Joshi can assist the Court upon this alternative being explored for production of the accused persons”.

Advocate Vinod Kashid appeared for the Applicant, Public Prosecutor A.S. Pai appeared for the Respondent, and Advocate Satyavrat Joshi appeared as Amicus Curie.

A Bail Application was filed before the Court, as he was not present before the Trial Court during the hearing.

The Petitioner contended that the Court does not have to issue a production warrant each time before the hearing of the case for the jail authorities to produce the Accused before the Court. However, in the case, the jail authorities brought the accused to Court only after issuing the production warrant. The Petitioner alleged that under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a Magistrate cannot detain an accused for more than 15 days at a time. Once the accused is produced in court and the next hearing date is noted, this is enough to ensure their presence in court on that date. However, such was not followed by the Jail Authorities in the case. 

The Court noted that such a conundrum needs resolution and directed Satyavrat Joshi to assist as an amicus curiae to ensure a workable solution. The Court also took judicial note that on several dates of listing, the accused were not produced before the Court.

The Court noted the Respondent’s counsel submission that the accused can be produced on required dates through video conferencing and that the Court shall note whether such facility is available in all Jails and whether it is in working condition.

Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for October 5.

Cause Title: Tribhuvansing Raghunath Yadav v The State of Maharashtra

Click here to read/download the Order