The Delhi High Court has expressed unhappiness with the trial courts for non-compliance of directions concerning trials and not seeking an extension for complying with the orders.
"I am of the considered opinion that once a direction is passed by this Court to the subordinate Court, the said court is duty-bound to comply with the directions within the stipulated time or seek an extension for the same," a bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said.
The judge noted that "he has come across certain cases, wherein this court had passed directions, but subordinate courts have neither complied with them nor sought an extension for the same."
"Accordingly, I hereby direct all the subordinate courts concerned that when directions are passed by this Court, the courts shall duly comply with the same, in failure whereof they shall seek an extension from this court well in advance i.e. before the expiry of the period as directed by this court. In the event the subordinate court fails to act in accordance with the directions passed by this court, actions shall be taken against the judicial officer concerned as per law," the order said.
The bench directed the registry of the High Court to communicate this order to all the District and Sessions Judges in Delhi who shall in-turn apprise to all the judges concerned.
The observations came while granting bail to an accused Pooran alias Sumit, who was in judicial custody since June 17, 2013, in a murder case. Pooran was arrested on June 12, 2013, and remanded to five days police custody.
Justice Kait, in his order dated September 10, observed that the not even half of the witnesses could be examined in the case against Pooran.
Pooran is facing trial in a case under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act for charges of murder registered at Mundka Police Station in Delhi.
Advocates Kanhaiya Singhal and Pratiksha Tripathi, defence counsels, told the court that total 21 prosecution witnesses out of 52 witnesses have been examined so far till date.
The High Court noted that vide order dated December 4, 2018, it had directed the trial court to expedite and conclude the trial within one year. Admittedly, the trial court could not conclude the trial within the stipulated time as directed, this court noted.
Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Chadha opposed the bail plea petition by submitting that the murder was cleverly planned, without leaving any evidence behind, therefore, for four good months police could not track the case.
"It was only when the petitioner was arrested in the case, the accused disclosed about his involvement in the present case and thereafter weapon and vehicle used in the offence were also recovered," Chadha said.
The bench said "keeping in view the period already spent in judicial custody and that trial shall take substantial time, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves bail".
The court told the accused to furnish a personal bond of Rs 25,000 and two sureties of the like amount."
The court also imposed certain conditions including that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influence or contact any witness or tamper with the evidence.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor