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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more