Courts Are Not Powerless To Proceed Against Witnesses Who Are Not Permitting The Trial To Proceed: Allahabad HC

The Court stated that the sub inspector being a government servant is supposed to render his fullest cooperation and support as a custodian of the law and its proceedings.

The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, “It is true that in our judicial system we often bank upon the witnesses and their testimonies, but, if the witnesses are not permitting the trial to proceed or take this procedure for their joyride, at the same time the courts are not powerless to ensure the proceeding by using all coercive methods available under the scheme of Criminal Procedure.”

Courts Are Not Powerless When Witnesses Take The System For Their Joyride

Senior Advocate I.K. Chaturvedi appeared for the Appellant.

The Applicant Aniket Dixit who has been languishing in jail for the past 6 years in a case under Section 306 IPC reached the High Court with his second bail application.

The Court stated that on an earlier occasion, the Court sought a written explanation from the trial Court on the generous behaviour of the Court over repeated requests of ‘Hajiri Maafi’.

The Court noted that the trial Court informed in the explanation that during its period of around one year, it examined 3 witnesses; however, only two witnesses were examined in a time of around 4 years before his tenure.

The Court further stated that it is evident from the report that one of the prosecution witness Vinod Kumar Mishra, Sub Inspector is rendering non-cooperation in the early conclusion of the trial and the court has issued bailable warrants against the said erring Sub-Inspector.

The Court observed, “If any of the prosecution witnesses is rendering non-cooperation or creating hindrances in the early conclusion of the trial, the trial court is not powerless. The trial court has ample powers provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure the attendance of witnesses. Besides they can issue bailable warrants or non bailable warrants in Chapter-VI, Part (C) which provides proclamation and attachment. The learned trial court, in a given circumstance, can pass a suitable order for attaching the salary of any government servant or issue non-bailable warrants against such witnesses who is government servant.”

The Court directed the trial court to hold the trial on day to day basis without granting any adjournment to any of the parties or their witnesses.

The Court further directed the trial Court that except Sundays and other public holidays, the Court has to take up the matter either in the open court or in his Chambers.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the second bail application.

Cause Title: Aniket Dixit v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:72339)

Appearance:

Appellant: Sr. Adv. Dileep Kumar, Adv. Rajrshi Gupta, Adv. Saurabh Chaturvedi, Adv. Shambhawi Shukla