The Supreme Court granted bail to a petitioner in a Thane criminal case while taking serious note of procedural lapses by State authorities in producing the accused before the trial court. The Court emphasized the fundamental right of an accused to be brought before the Court as a safeguard against abuse and directed a departmental inquiry into the negligence of prison authorities.
The petitioner approached the Top Court seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered at Vitthalwadi Police Station, Thane, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 353, and 333 of the IPC. The case involved an assault in which the deceased initially alleged stabbing but later clarified that the petitioner and co-accused had only assaulted him with fists and kicks. The Police Constable involved did not specifically identify the petitioner. The petitioner had been in custody for over four years without prior criminal antecedents, while a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail.
The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that the trial was proceeding slowly, with the petitioner not being produced in court on 55 out of 85 trial dates, infringing on his rights. It was argued that the petitioner had no prior criminal record and that continued custody under these circumstances was unjust. The State did not contest these claims during the hearing.
The Apex Court strongly criticized the conduct of State authorities, noting, "The production of an accused before the Court is not only to ensure speedy trial but also serves as a safeguard so that the prisoner is not abused and can directly air grievances against the authorities. There has been grave infraction of such fundamental safeguard, which is appalling and shocking. We deprecate the same."
The Court directed the Director General of Prisons, Maharashtra, to conduct a personal inquiry into the matter, fix responsibility, and take appropriate action against those negligent. It clarified that any attempt to shield officials would result in the DG being held personally accountable. The Court ordered that a report be submitted via an affidavit within two months.
On the merits of the bail application, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for release, "A case for bail has been made out. Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Court."
The Top Court granted bail to the petitioner while directing that the departmental inquiry into the prison authorities’ lapses be completed and reported by February 3, 2026. All pending applications related to the matter were also disposed of.
Picture Source :