Delay in producing under trials 'squarely attributable to State'

Coming down heavily on the State of Punjab for repeated non-production of under trial prisoners before the courts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for supervisory intervention by Amritsar Sessions Judge. Among other things, he has been asked to hold meetings with the police and the jail authorities to ensure physical or virtual appearance of the accused in the digital era.

The lapse surfaced during the hearing of a bail petition in a murder case registered on March 28, 2024, at Kamboj police station in Amritsar Rural. “It has been found – as reported by the Presiding Officer of the trial Court – that the delay in trial is squarely attributable to the State of Punjab, which has repeatedly failed on many occasions to produce the under trials before the trial Courts,” Justice Surya Partap Singh asserted.

Rejecting the explanation tendered in the matter by Amritsar Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) —represented in person by SP (Rural) Gurjeet Pal Singh, the Bench asserted the same on the face of it was not convincing at all.

Taking a firm stance on the systemic lapses, Justice Surya Partap Singh directed Amritsar Sessions Judge to personally intervene.

“The Sessions Judge, Amritsar, is requested to hold a meeting with the authorities of police department vis-a-vis jail department concerned and ensure that in this era of digital world the accused should be produced either physically or through virtual mode.”

The Sessions Judge was also instructed to supervise compliance for a month and submit a report indicating whether any improvement occurred. The high court registry was directed to list the matter as in the third week of January 2026.

Bail allowed after court notes significant delays and evidentiary weaknesses

Allowing the petitioner’s first bail plea, the Bench observed that he had been in custody for nearly one year and eight months while the trial had not progressed even to the stage of framing charges.

There was no eyewitness account, and the prosecution’s case rested solely on a disclosure statement recorded during police custody.

Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that the statement prima facie appeared to be hit by Section 23 of the Bharatiya Saksharta Adhiniyam, 2023, as no “discovery of fact pertaining to the case” emerged from it. Besides this, nothing remained to be recovered, the petitioner had no criminal history relating to hurt cases, and there was no material to suggest he would tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or avoid trial while on bail.

“If the cumulative effect of all the factors involved in the instant case is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed,” the Bench concluded.