Punjab: Delay in production of undertrials ‘entirely due to the state’

Punjab: Slamming the Punjab government for repeatedly failing to produce undertrial prisoners in court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Amritsar Sessions Judge to exercise supervisory influence. Among other things, he has been asked to hold meetings with police and jail officials to ensure physical or virtual appearance of the accused in the digital age. This lapse came to light on March 28, 2024, during the hearing of a bail petition in a murder case registered at the Kamboj police station in Amritsar Rural. Justice Surya Pratap Singh said, “It has been found – as stated by the presiding officer of the trial court – that the delay in the trial is entirely due to the Punjab government, which has repeatedly failed to produce the undertrial prisoners before the trial court on several occasions.”
Rejecting the explanation given by the Amritsar Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) – who was himself represented by SP (Rural) Gurjeet Pal Singh – the bench said that it was not convincing at all at first glance. Taking a strong view of the system’s shortcomings, Justice Surya Pratap Singh directed the Amritsar Sessions Judge to personally intervene. “The Amritsar Sessions Judge is requested to hold a meeting with the officials of the Police Department and the Jail Department and ensure that in this digital age, the accused is produced either physically or virtually.” The Sessions Judge was also directed to supervise compliance with the rules for a month and submit a report indicating any improvements. The High Court Registry was directed to list the case in the third week of January 2026. The court noted the considerable delay and weaknesses in the evidence, after which bail was granted. Granting the petitioner’s first bail application, the bench noted that he had been in custody for almost a year and eight months, while the trial had not even reached the stage of framing charges. There were no eyewitnesses, and the prosecution’s case rested entirely on a disclosure statement recorded while in police custody. Justice Surya Pratap Singh held that prima facie, the statement fell within Section 23 of the Indian Penal Code Act, 2023, as it “did not reveal any material fact relevant to the case.” Furthermore, nothing was recovered, the petitioner had no criminal history involving incriminating matters, and there was no evidence to suggest that he would tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or evade trial while on bail. The bench said, “A cumulative view of all the factors involved in this case leads to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and the present petition should be allowed.”