Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, November 24, 2024

Can't Keep Anyone Behind Bars At Whims And Wishes Of Prosecution Witnesses: MP HC Directs State To Pay 50K To NDPS Act Accused

Posted in: Criminal Law
Wed, Sep 22, 21, 20:14, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 3826
Jaipal Singh v/s MP hearing the 10th bail plea of one Jaipal Singh on the ground of delay in the trial when it noted that State Government was continuously blatantly violating the fundamental right of the applicant of speedy trial.

While displaying zero tolerance for violation of personal liberty of a citizen of India which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has as recently as on September 14, 2021 in a commendable, cogent, composed and convincing judgment titled Jaipal Singh Vs State of MP in MCRC-42352-2021 has explicitly directed the Madhya Pradesh State Government to pay Rs 50,000/- to an NDPS accused within 15 days for violation of his fundamental right who has been behind bars since January 2018 and the prosecution failed to present its witnesses before the Court for the trial as was required. It must be apprised here that the single Judge Bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia was hearing the 10th bail plea of one Jaipal Singh on the ground of delay in the trial when it noted that State Government was continuously blatantly violating the fundamental right of the applicant of speedy trial. Very rightly so!

To put it differently: Why should the State Government be left scot free if it is culpable of blatantly violating the fundamental right of the applicant of speedy trial? Why we see police so blatantly violating the fundamental rights of even senior Army officers as we saw in case of Lt Col Prasad Shrikanth Purohit who was also a decorated officer who got Army Chief Commendation Card also for his fight against insurgency in J&K while he was posted there and still in his case charge sheet was not filed for more than 9 years after his illegal arrest in the most questionable manner which was questioned even by former Army Chief Gen (retd) Shankar Roy Chowdhury and he got bail after more than 9 years in jail when eminent and senior lawyer and former Solicitor General Harish Salve brilliantly argued his case in the Apex Court in 2017 and if this can happen so with such a senior Army Officer what must the police be doing in case of an ordinary citizen? Such police officers and also the State Government must be held accountable and in this case we see how the State Government has been held fully accountable in this particular case!

To start with, the ball is set rolling in this judgment authored by a single Judge Bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia of the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court by putting forth first and foremost that:
Case Diary is available. This tenth application under Section 439 of CrPC has been filed for grant of bail. Ninth bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 07.06.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.23482/2021. The applicant has been arrested on 05.01.2018 in connection with Crime No.7/2018 registered at Police Station Ron District Bhind for the offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. This repeat application has been filed for grant of bail on the ground of delay along with the complete order-sheets of the Trial Court. This repeat application has been filed for grant of bail on the ground of delay along with the complete order-sheets of the Trial Court.

To be sure, the Bench then discloses in the next para that:
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that this Court by order dated 25.06.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.10547/2020 had awarded the compensation to the applicant on account of nonappearance of the prosecution witnesses, but the situation has not improved and still the prosecution witnesses are not appearing.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then observes that:
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the prosecution case, 520 grams of opium was seized from the possession of the applicant, whereas 21 kg 570 grams of ganja was seized from the possession of the accused Ramnaresh and both of them were travelling in the same nano car. Earlier also the applicant had moved an application for grant of bail on the ground of delay in trial, however after condemning the hostile attitude of the prosecution by not producing the prosecution witnesses, this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 10547/2020 passed a detailed order dated 25.06.2020 and held that the prosecution has blatantly violated the fundamental right of the applicant of speedy trial and, accordingly, the prosecution was saddled with the liability of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by way of compensation to the applicant with liberty to recover the same from the salary of Inspector Rekha Pal and Inspector Ramnaresh Yadav.

Quite discernibly, the Bench then quipped in the next para that:
It is not known as to whether the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- has been paid to the applicant Jaipal Singh or not and whether the said compensation amount has been recovered from the salary of Inspector Rekha Pal and Inspector Ramnaresh Yadav or not and whether copy of the said order has been placed in the service book of Inspector Rekha Pal and Inspector Ramnaresh Yadav or not, therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Bhind is directed to immediately submit his compliance report to the Principal Registrar of this Court within a period of two weeks from today.

Be it noted, the Bench then points out that:
So far as the question of delay in trial is concerned, the applicant was awarded the compensation by order dated 25.06.2020 and from the order-sheets of the Trial Court, it appears that thereafter the case was taken up on 22.07.2020 but the prosecution witnesses were not present. Even the applicant was not produced. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 17.08.2020. However, on 17.08.2020 the case was adjourned on account of limited Court functioning in the wake of second wave of Covid-19. On 03.09.2020, 18.09.2020, 06.10.2020, 19.11.2020 and 10.12.2020, the case was adjourned for the same reason. On 23.12.2020 the application of the applicant for his transfer to Bhind Jail was allowed. On 13.01.2021 warrant of arrest was issued against the prosecution witness No. 9. On 06.02.2021 the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Ramnaresh (PW-6) was recorded. Thereafter, on 23.02.2021 the Rekha Pal (PW-7) was examined. On 15.03.2021 summons were served on Sub-Inspector Vinod Chhawai, but he did not appear and, accordingly, bailable warrants were issued. On 03.04.2021 summons issued against the other witnesses were received back as served, but they did not appear. Similarly bailable warrant of arrest issued against Vinod was not received back either served or unserved. On 04.08.2021 bailable warrants issued against Sub-Inspector Vinod Chhawai were received back with an endorsement that he has been informed through RM as well as on mobile. However, when the AGP contacted Vinod then he informed that due to heavy rains in Guna and Shivpuri, the road connection has broken with Gwalior, therefore, he is unable to appear, accordingly, fresh bailable warrants of arrest was issued and the case was taken on 24.08.2021.

As it turned out, the Bench then observed that:
Since the applicant has not filed the copy of the order-sheet dated 24.08.2021, therefore, it is not known as to what transpired on the said date. From the order-sheets of the Trial Court, it is clear that although the summons were served on Sub-Inspector Vinod Chhawai, but he deliberately did not appear before the Trial Court on 15.03.2021 and on 03.04.2021, the bailable warrant of arrest was not returned back either served or unserved. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has not taken a lesson from the order dated 25.06.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.10547/2020 and they are still working as per their own pleasure. The prosecution is not interested in early disposal of the trial and every prosecution witness who is a police personnel is taking trial for granted, and are not appearing before the Trial Court without assigning any reason and permission from the Court.

As a corollary, the Bench then quite forthrightly observes that:
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the State Government is continuously blatantly violating the fundamental right of the applicant of speedy trial. On earlier occasion, compensation of Rs.20,000/- was directed to be paid to the applicant for violation of his fundamental right. It is really unfortunate that the prosecution is not ready to understand that no one can be kept behind the bars at the whims and wishes of the prosecution witnesses. If the prosecution is not in a position to keep its witnesses present, then they must think it seriously as to whether they should go for prosecution of the accused or not. Filing of the charge-sheet is not the end of the duty of the prosecution. It is their duty to ensure that the witnesses appear before the Trial Court regularly without any default so that fate of a person can be decided on the basis of evidences.

Most significantly, the Bench then holds that:
Under these circumstances, where the prosecution has not learnt a lesson and is again blatantly violating the fundamental right of the applicant, accordingly, the State is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the applicant for utter violation of the fundamental right. The PHQ has issued various circulars directing that daily review regarding service of Summons/Bailable Warrants/Warrants shall be done by a gazetted officer. But it appears that all those circulars have been thrown in the dustbin and since the Superintendent of Police, Bhind has miserably failed in ensuring the appearance of his own police witnesses before the Trial Court, therefore, it is directed that the said compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be recovered from the salary of Superintendent of Police, Bhind. The State Government is also directed to initiate a Departmental Enquiry against Vinod Chhawai, Sub-inspector, who did not appear before the Trial Court on 15.03.2021 in spite of service of summons. The State Government is also directed to start Departmental Enquiry against the constable who did not serve the bailable warrants on Vinod Chhawai and did not returned the same either served or unserved on 03.04.2021.

Adding more to it, the Bench then further directs that:
Let the compensation amount be paid within a period of 15 days from today and the Departmental Enquiry against Vinod and other guilty police personnel be initiated within the said period.

Furthermore, the Bench then also directs that:
The Inspector General of Police, Chambal Range, Gwalior is directed to submit his compliance report before the Principal Registrar of this Court on or before 04.10.2021. The Inspector General of Police is also directed to file an affidavit before the Principal Registrar of this Court to the effect as to whether the amount of Rs.50,000/- has been recovered from the salary of Superintendent of Police, Bhind or not as well as he is also directed to place the copy of the charge-sheet, which shall be issued to Vinod Chhawai and other guilty persons who did not appear before the Trial Court or who did not serve the summons/bailable warrants on the police witnesses.

In addition, the Bench then also directs that:
Apart from the payment of compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to the applicant, it is directed that the Trial shall be positively concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy/soft copy of this order.

Going ahead, the Bench then directs that:
The Trial Court shall fix the case on day to day basis and it shall be the personal duty and responsibility of Superintendent of Police, Bhind to ensure that all the prosecution witnesses appear before the Trial Court on the date which will be fixed by the Trial Court. In case, if any witness is unable to appear before the Trial Court, then the application shall be filed with an affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Bhind pointing out the reasons for exemption from appearance of the witness on the said date.

What's more, the Bench then also further directs that:
Office is directed to immediately send a copy of this order to the Trial Court as well as to the Inspector General of Police, Chambal Range, Gwalior as well as the Superintendent of Police, Bhind for necessary information and compliance.

Finally, the Bench then holds that:
A typed copy of this order be also provided to the Public Prosecutor so that he can communicate the same to the Inspector General of Police, Chambal Range, Gwalior as well as the Superintendent of Police, Bhind without any further delay. With aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.

In sum, it is most refreshing, most rejuvenating and most reasonable to note that the single Judge Bench comprising of Justice GS Ahluwalia of Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has demonstrated zero tolerance for the State Government's reprehensible act of blatantly violating the fundamental right of the applicant of speedy trial. All the courts in India must emulate such extremely commendable rulings! Similar compensation must be given in all such cases where the State is so guilty and where the period of detention is longer as we saw in case of serving army officer Lt Col Prasad Shrikanth Purohit who was illegally jailed for more than 9 years without even filing a charge sheet which is most disgraceful and the compensation amount must be much far higher so that no State ever dares to take the personal liberty of any citizen for granted and the guilty police officer as also others who are guilty of wrongly detaining a person or torturing must be not just fined but also sent behind bars for the same period for which the concerned citizen was wrongly detained and tortured! Only then can we really call ourselves a truly democratic country and a free country in the real sense!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, UP.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top