The Bombay High Court in the case Tribhuvansing Raghunath Yadav vs The State of Maharashtra observed and has raised concerns with regards to the non-production of incarcerated prisoners before Metropolitan Magistrate Courts every 15 days and asked the prosecutor in order to inform if video conferencing facilities were provided in all MM Courts in Mumbai.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre in the case was dealing with the bail application moved wherein Tribhuvansing Yadav, who being an accused in a forgery case, was not produced before the MM Court in Andheri on several dates. The court stated that under section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC, an accused who cannot be remanded to over 15 days of custody and must be produced before the court to justify his further detention.
The court in the case observed that the non-production was a regular feature, the bench of Justice Dangre directed the prisons department to file an affidavit on this aspect.
Therefore, an affidavit was then placed before the court by Addl. Director General of Police and Inspector General, the Prisons and Correctional Services, State of Maharashtra, Pune.
It has also been claimed by the prison department that the trial court did not direct Taloja Central Prison to produce the accused and therefore he was not produced before the trial Court on those date. It has also been pointed out by them that the accused was produced before the court last month after the court issued a warrant.
It has also been asserted by the Public Prosecutor Aruna Pai that it being imperative for the trial Court to issue a production warrant and in absence of which no accused can be produced before the Court.
The court in the case obserevd and has directed that the PP to take instructions and appointed Advocate Satyavrat Joshi to assist the Court as an amicus curiae, so that the workable solution is found out after ascertaining the position in law and the procedural aspect, since time and again the grievance is made on behalf of accused, and not only this, thus, the said court has taken judicial note of the fact that on several dates of listing, the accused are not produced before the Court. Therefore, it has been suggested by the PP Aruna Paid that the accused could also be produced via video conferencing.
The bench of Justice of Justice Dangre stated that the necessary instructions be obtained by Ms.Pai on the said aspect and even on ascertaining whether the facility of video conferencing is made available to each Magistrate, thus, the Court restricted for the time being to Mumbai and Suburban area.