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

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...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...