"Can't Keep Anyone Behind Bars At Whims & Wishes Of Prosecution Witnesses": MP High Court Directs State To Pay 50K To NDPS Act Accused

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed 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. The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia was hearing the 10th bail plea of one Jaipal Singh on the ground of delay in the trial when it noted that State Government was continuously blatantly violating the fundamental right of the applicant of speedy trial. The matter in brief The applicant had been 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 nonappearance 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. Now, filing the instant bail plea, the applicant submitted that the situation had not improved and still, the prosecution witnesses were not appearing for the trial. Against this backdrop, the Court observed thus: "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." Importantly, underling that no one can be kept behind the bars at the whims and wishes of the prosecution witnesses, the Court also observed thus: "If the prosecution is not in a position to keep its witnesses present, then they must think it 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" Ordering a 50K compensation to the accused, the Court also directed that since the Superintendent of Police, Bhind had miserably failed in ensuring the appearance of his own police witnesses before the Trial Court, therefore, the compensation be recovered from the salary of the Superintendent of Police, Bhind. Further, the State Government was also directed to initiate a Departmental Enquiry against Sub-inspector, who did not appear before the Trial Court on March 15, 2021, in spite of service of summons. The State Government was also directed to start Departmental Inquiry against the constable who did not serve the bailable warrants on Vinod Chhawai and did not return the same either served or unserved. Lastly, directing that the trial be completed within 3 months, the Trial Court has been asked to fix the case on 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. Case title - Jaipal Singh Vs. State of MP Click Here To Download OrderRead Order

"Can't Keep Anyone Behind Bars At Whims & Wishes Of Prosecution Witnesses": MP High Court Directs State To Pay 50K To NDPS Act Accused

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags