The Allahabad High Court has said that a person cannot be detained for an indefinite period if the prosecution is not taking interest and making sincere efforts to produce the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh heard a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Manoj.
This is the fourth bail application of the applicant. The first, second and third bail applications of the applicant were rejected by order dated 05.04.2018, 18.07.2022 and 05.04.2023.
The fourth bail application of the applicant has been moved mainly on the ground of long detention of the applicant in jail since 13.02.2017.
Main substratum of argument of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 13.02.2017 but till date, his trial has not been concluded. It is also pointed out that in the last more than seven and a half years, the prosecution has produced only three prosecution witnesses before the trial Court, which amounts to violation of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard.
Considering the laches on the part of the prosecution, a Coordinate Bench of the Court has granted bail to co-accused Pancham Singh @ Panchhi by order dated 13.09.2024, therefore, apart from merit of the case, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity of the order dated 13.09.2024.
The Court observed,
Since such type of matters are frequently coming to the Court where prosecution is not producing the prosecution witnesses on time even in heinous matters whereas in several cases, the Supreme Court has granted bail to such accused, who are under long incarceration, and sincere efforts are not being made by the prosecution to conclude their trial irrespective of gravity of an offence, which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The case is also one of those cases which prima facie indicates slackness on the part of the prosecution.
Under the facts of the case, before passing final order in the matter, it would be appropriate to call for a report from the concerned Presiding Officer, the Court further observed.
“Let a report be called for from the concerned Presiding Officer with regard to the present status of trial of the applicant. The report shall also indicate in detail the proceeding of the case mentioning that as to why trial has not yet been concluded and who is responsible for delay in trial of the accused applicant.
In the meantime, Director General of Police, UP, Lucknow shall also file his personal affidavit as to why prosecution is not producing the prosecution witnesses before the trial Courts even in heinous matters and being head of the police department in State of Uttar Pradesh, what steps have been taken by him to ensure production of prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial Courts. If in any matter, he has fixed the responsibility of erring official/person concerned, the detail of the same shall also be brought on record through his affidavit.
Registrar (Compliance) of the Court is directed to communicate this order to the concerned trial Court as well as Director General of Police, UP, Lucknow for information and compliance,” the order reads.
The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on 17.10.2024.