Representative image
MUMBAI: Producing an undertrial prisoner in court was a fundamental safeguard to enable them to air grievances, said Supreme Court as it censured state prison authorities for their failure to produce an inmate on 65% of the court dates.“We are shocked at the conduct of the state authorities,” said the bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra and directed the director general, prisons, to conduct a “personal inquiry into the matter and fix responsibility and take action against the persons concerned”.The accused, Shashi Jurmani, in custody for more than four years, petitioned SC for bail in a criminal attempt to murder case registered at Ulhasnagar in 2021. The apex court granted Jurmani bail subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court. Jurmani’s counsel submitted that he was not even produced before a court on 55 dates out of 85.The SC bench heard state counsel Raman Yadav’s response and noted that the submission of the petitioner’s counsel, Sana Raees Khan, regarding the undertrial inmate’s non-production in court had “not been controverted”.The initial allegation against the petitioner in the FIR was that he, along with others, stabbed a man as well as a police constable. However, later, the man, who died after two months, “clearly” said in his statement that the petitioner only assaulted him with fists and kicks and it was another accused who had stabbed the policeman with a knife.The police constable, in his statement, did not name any accused and only described physical build, noted the SC order.The petitioner claimed that he had no criminal antecedents and a co-accused had been granted bail.“We are shocked at the conduct of the state authorities. The production of an accused before the court is not only to ensure a speedy trial but more importantly, as a safeguard so that the prisoner is not abused otherwise, and he comes directly in contact with the court to air his grievances, if any, against the authorities. We find that there has been a grave infraction of such fundamental safeguard, which is appalling and shocking. We deprecate the same,” said Supreme Court.“If any attempt is made to protect or shield any person”, SC said the DG prisons or the head of department to whom it was entrusting the inquiry “shall be personally held responsible”.The court sought a report with an affidavit personally affirmed by the officer in two months, when the matter would next be heard.
