New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has asked the Bombay High Court and the Maharashtra government to evolve a mechanism to ensure that accused are produced before trial judges either physically or virtually on every date so that the trial is not prolonged.
The apex court, while dealing with an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court order denying bail to an accused, said a "sorry state of affairs" was being depicted as the trial proceedings in the case was being prolonged due to non-production of appellant before the trial judge either physically or virtually.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan was informed that this was not a solitary case but in many cases, such a difficulty arises.
"We, therefore, direct the registrar general of the high court of judicature at Bombay, secretary, Home, state of Maharashtra and secretary, Law and Justice, state of Maharashtra to sit together and evolve a mechanism to ensure that the accused are produced before the trial judge either physically or virtually on every date and the trial is not permitted to be prolonged on the ground of non-production of the accused persons," the bench said.
In its order passed on December 18, the apex court noted that material placed on record revealed that in the last six years, out of 102 dates, the accused was not produced before the court either physically or through virtual mode on most of the dates.
"We may say with anguish that this is a very sorry state of affairs. If an accused is
incarcerated for a period of approximately five years without even framing of charges, leave aside the right of speedy trial being affected, it would amount to imposing sentence without trial," the bench said.
It said such a prolonged delay was also not in the interest of the rights of the victim.
The bench said a copy of its order be forwarded to the registrar general of the high court and the secretaries of Home and Law and Justice of Maharashtra government forthwith for necessary action.
The bench delivered its verdict on the appeal challenging an order of the high court which had rejected the bail plea of the appellant in a case registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
The apex court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant on a bond of Rs 50,000 with one or more sureties in the like amount.
It directed that the appellant shall continue to appear before the special judge on every date regularly.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday expressed disappointment over the non-production of witnesses in the ongoing trial against Ashish Mishra, son of former Union minister Ajay Mishra, and others in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the status report filed before it by the Uttar Pradesh government has not assigned any reason whatsoever for the non-production of witnesses.
It noted that no witnesses have been examined in the trial for the last two months.
"We direct the presiding judge to take lawful measures to secure the presence of witnesses," the bench said.
It asked the trial judge to make an endeavour to conclude the trial in a time-bound manner, and also to file a status report before it.
The trials in two cases related to the incident are going on before a court in Uttar Pradesh.
The bench noted that in the first case, out of 131 witnesses to be examined, 44 have been examined, 15 have been discharged and 72 are still to be produced.
In the second FIR, out of 35 witnesses, 26 have been examined and nine were left, it said.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Ashish Mishra, said that as per the latest status report filed by Uttar Pradesh, 44 witnesses have been examined so far in the first FIR.
"No witnesses have been examined in the last two months," Dave said.
He argued that the last status report filed by the state in March also said that 44 witnesses had been examined.
"What have you done from March till today?" the bench asked the counsel appearing for Uttar Pradesh.
The state's counsel said that 3-4 witnesses were summoned for the recording of their deposition during the trial.
The bench said at least 7-8 witnesses should be summoned instead of three or four for a day, so that even if some of them do not turn up, the trial court could proceed with the recording of statements of those appearing before it.
The top court also wondered how official witnesses can remain absent during the trial.
"We are disappointed to note that the so-called status report does not assign any reason whatsoever for non-production of witnesses...," the bench said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the relatives of the farmers who were allegedly mowed down in the incident, said the apex court will have to do something regarding the manner in which the trial was going on.
The bench noted that besides the two FIRs, another FIR was registered in October last year concerning alleged witness intimidation.
It said that, as per the state's status report, the chargesheet was filed against the main accused in that case.
The bench noted that the status report reveals that, as far as Ashish Mishra is concerned, his alleged role in the third case is still being investigated.
The top court directed the investigating officer of the third case to conclude the pending probe and ensure that the appropriate report is filed before the concerned court within four weeks.
The bench posted the next hearing in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case for July.
On October 3, 2021, eight people, including four farmers, were killed in Tikunia in Lakhimpur Kheri district during a protest by farmers against Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya's visit to the area.
Four farmers were mowed down by a sports utility vehicle. A driver and two BJP workers were then allegedly lynched by angry farmers. A journalist also died in the violence.
In one of the cases, the trial court in December 2023 framed charges against Mishra and 12 others for alleged murder, criminal conspiracy and under other penal laws in the case of the farmers' deaths, paving the way for the trial.
