Supreme Court bemoans non-production of accused before trial courts in Maharashtra

The Supreme Court recently asked the Bombay High Court and Maharashtra government to take corrective steps to tackle non-production of accused before trial courts [Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another].A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order while granting bail to an accused in a case under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).The Court took note of the fact that accused had been in custody for about five years but charges were yet to be framed against him. "A sorry state of affairs is being depicted. The trial is being prolonged on the ground that the appellant is not produced before the Trial Judge either physically or virtually. We are informed that this is not a solitary case but in many cases such a difficulty arises," the Court said..Accordingly, the Court directed the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court and the secretaries of State Home and Law departments to evolve a mechanism to ensure that accused are produced before trial courts either physically or virtually on every date and trial is not permitted to be prolonged on the ground of non-production of the accused persons."A copy of this order be forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Secretary, Home, State of Maharashtra and Secretary, Law and Justice, State of Maharashtra forthwith for necessary action," the Court ordered. .The Court was dealing with an appeal denying bail to the accused alleged to be part of a gang. Though the top court found no error in Bombay High Court's reasoning to uphold denial of bail to the accused, it took serious note of his prolonged incarceration.It found that the accused was not produced before the trial court on most dates. "The material placed on record would reveal that for a period of the last six years, out of 102 dates, the accused has not been produced before the Court either physically or through virtual mode on most of the dates," the Court noted. .Taking note of the fact that even charges were not framed against the accused, the Court said,"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. In our view, such a prolonged delay is also not in the interest of the rights of the victim."Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the accused subject to stringent conditions..[Read Judgment]