Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, September 2
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered an inquiry into the forced suffering of an undertrial in a drugs case after noticing non-bailable warrants were issued against him though he was in judicial custody, as the trial court without looking into the case file believed he was out on bail.
Rapping the trial court for “a very casual approach”, Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan also castigated an Additional Public Prosecutor for making a false statement that the petitioner had been released on bail. A process server, too, was reprimanded for preparing a report on the undertrial’s house being locked, while sitting in his office.
“The Registrar (Vigilance)/Registrar (Building) of this court is directed to hold an inquiry and fix the responsibility of the person, on whose casual and irresponsible approach, the petitioner is made to suffer. Till the time, report is received and also considering the fact that life and liberty of the petitioner is at stake, which is taken in a very casual manner, the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bailhellip;,” Justice Sangwan asserted, while setting a 30-day deadline for the purpose.
The directions came after Justice Sangwan went through the report and explanations submitted by the Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar-IX, and Kapurthala Central Jail Superintendent. Justice Sangwan asserted it was apparent that the undertrial was never produced before the court for a considerable period of more than a year either on account of the fault of the court, the investigating officer, Amritsar Superintendent, Central Jail or the Additional Public Prosecutor, who made the false statement, resulting in the issuance of non-bailable warrants by the court without verifying the fact from the court file itself.
In his detailed order, Justice Sangwan added it was held by the Supreme Court that grant of bail to an accused was directly related to his right of life and liberty. Surprisingly, a “very casual approach” was adopted by the trial court. Despite his long custody, charge had not been framed. As such, the trial was yet to commence.
For a year, the case was being adjourned or non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner, though he was in judicial custody. It appeared that the petitioner was never granted bail without looking into the case file and the trial court believed the false statement. “Thereafter, on every date, non-bailable warrants were issued”.
“Even more surprising and shocking is the process server’s reporthellip; Had he visited the petitioner’s house, he would have brought to the court’s notice that in fact he is in judicial custody and was never granted bail.
