The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia directed the state government to pay 50,000/- to an NDPS Act 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. (Jaipal Singh Vs. State of MP)
The Bench was hearing the 10th bail plea of one Jaipal Singh on the ground of delay in the trial when it noted that the State Government was continuously blatantly violating the fundamental right of the applicant of speedy trial.
Facts of the case
The applicant was arrested on January 5, 2018 for the offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, however, even till June 2020, the trial couldn't commence and therefore, the Court in June 2020 awarded 20,000/- compensation to the bail applicant on account of the non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses.
The Court had directed to recover the same from the salary of two Inspectors, however, the Court was not apprised as to whether the compensation amount had been paid to the applicant Jaipal Singh or not.
Therefore applicant has filed the instant bail plea on the grounds that the situation had not improved and still, the prosecution witnesses were not appearing for the trial.
Contention of the Parties
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that this Court by an order passed previously had awarded the compensation to the applicant on account of non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, but the situation has not improved and still the prosecution witnesses are not appearing.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The Court against this backdrop, observed, " The prosecution is not interested in early disposal of the trial and every prosecution witness who is police personnel is taking trial for granted, and are not appearing before the Trial Court without assigning any reason and permission from the Court."
The court further noted that no one can be kept behind the bars at the whims and wishes of the prosecution witnesses.
The Court observed, "If the prosecution is not in a position to keep its witnesses present, then they must think seriously as to whether they should go for the prosecution of the accused or not. The 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 the fate of a person can be decided on the basis of pieces of evidence"
The court thus ordering a 50K compensation to the accused ordered, "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 return the same either served or unserved on 03.04.2021"
Lastly, the Court directing that the trial be completed within 3 months asked the Trial Court to fix the case on a day-to-day basis.
The Court has also made it 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.
Read Judgment ;
0 Comments