Supreme Court expresses shock as Maharashtra prison authorities fail to produce accused on 55 dates out of 85; orders probe
&imwidth=600&imheight=450&format=webp&quality=medium "Supreme Court expresses shock as Maharashtra prison authorities fail to produce accused on 55 dates out of 85; orders probe")
Representational Image. Photograph: (Wikimedia Commons)
The Supreme Court ordered the Head of Maharashtra’s Prison Department to launch a probe and take strict action against the officials responsible. It also directed the prison officials to file a compliance report via an affidavit personally affirmed by the designated officer within two months.
The Supreme Court slammed Maharashtra’s prison authorities for a shocking lapse, repeatedly failing to produce an undertrial before the trial court. The accused, held in custody for over four years, was absent on 55 of 85 scheduled trial dates.
While granting bail, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra expressed astonishment at this blatant disregard for the judicial process, calling it a serious violation of fundamental rights. The Court ordered the Head of Maharashtra’s Prison Department to launch a full inquiry and take strict action against the officials responsible.
The court ordered, “We direct the Director General of Prisons, State of Maharashtra or whoever is the designated Head of Department of Prisons, to conduct a personal inquiry into the matter and fix responsibility and take action against the persons concerned. It is made clear that if any attempt is made to protect or shield any person, the Director General of Prisons/Head of Department of Prisons to whom we are entrusting the inquiry, shall be personally held responsible for the same.”
The Supreme Court observed that the undertrial’s repeated absence from court hearings not only violated his fundamental rights but also denied him the crucial opportunity to raise complaints about mistreatment inside the prison.
The court further stated, “We are shocked at the conduct of the State authorities.The production of an accused before the Court is not only to ensure 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 so as to air his grievances if any, against the authorities. We find that there has been grave infraction of such fundamental safeguard, which is appalling and shocking. We deprecate the same.”
The Court further directed the prison authorities to file a compliance report via an affidavit personally affirmed by the designated officer within two months. The matter is scheduled to be listed on 3 February 2026 for the Court to consider the personal report of the Director General of Prisons or the Head of the State Prison Department.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
