Skip to main content

Delhi HC frames time-frame for release of prisoners granted bail

bserving that there can be "absolutely no justification for delays in verification of sureties", a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw directed Delhi Police, including Jail Superintendants and SHOs, to "complete process of verification of local sureties within 10 days and outstation sureties latest within three weeks".

"Our direction aforesaid should not be understood as giving time of 10 days and three weeks, as the case may be, for verification. The process of verification, should be immediate, maximum within 24 hours, as there is absolutely no justification" for the State to keep a prisoner who has been granted bail for its own delays.

"The time limit fixed by us is the maximum and which maximum is to be availed of only in difficult cases and not to be made a norm. It should not be that verifications which now are being done sooner, are also delayed," the court said.

It also said the police officer on whose account process of verification is delayed, shall be liable for departmental action.

"An incarcerated ordered to be released on bail, once has furnished the bail bond with sureties, ought not to remain behind bars even for a minute more than necessary. No grounds, for shortage of personnel to conduct verification or non availability of surety when visited by such personnel or the like can constitute a reason in law therefor.

"The State ought to ensure the infrastructure necessary for such verification within the minimum possible time and there can be no reason, sufficient enough for denying such a person his liberty," the court said, while disposing of a PIL initiated on the letter of a Special CBI Judge who had flagged the issue of inordinate delay in verification of sureties.

The judge in his letter had said that the release of prisoners who were granted bail was being unduly delayed owing to the slow process of verification of sureties.

The letter had also stated that the time taken in the verification of sureties varied from three to 64 days.

Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/delhi/delhi-hc-frames-time-frame-for-release-of-prisoners-granted-bail_1575693.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil