Bombay High Court asks trial court to explain delay in completing trial, grants bail to murder accused

The Bombay High Court recently called for an explanation from a sessions judge the delay in completing a murder trial, despite the High Court's September 2022 direction to conclude the trial within 6 months. [Shishirkumar Gopalchandra Padhy v. State of Maharashtra].Justice Bharati Dangre also reprimanded the sessions judge for failing to comply with the High Court's order to expedite the trial by hearing it on a day-to-day basis. “The order passed by the higher Court when it directs that the judge shall fix the trial on a day-to-day basis does not indicate that the judge shall only fill the pages of roznama (daily record of proceeding) and record the happenings that the witness are absent or the accused is not produced from jail," the High Court judge observed. .Justice Dangre further criticised the trial court judge for failing to take positive steps to ensure the presence of witnesses and the accused in the case to move forward with the trial. ."Not a single positive step has been taken by the in-charge court to ensure the presence of witnesses and also to secure the presence of the accused on the concerned date. In this scenario, a direction is issued calling upon an explanation from the judge," the High Court ordered. .The High Court was hearing a plea for bail by one Shishirkumar Padhy who stood accused of murder and house trespass. .Padhy had approached the High Court with a bail plea a second time. He has remained in jail since January 18, 2016 when he was arrested in the case. The State informed the High Court that 5 out of 10 witnesses had been examined so far in the trial. Notably, the government also informed that the High Court had earlier directed the trial court to conclude the hearing within 6 months from September 30, 2022. To this end, the High Court had also ordered the trial court to hear the case on a daily basis. However, Justice Dangre noted that the trial was not proceeding on a day-to-day basis, but was spread across a week.Justice Dangre also deduced that the prosecution had viewed its own obligations to ensure the presence of witnesses during trial, too lightly. The judge also faulted the trial court for failing to secure the presence of the accused on some dates of the hearing..Justice Dange underscored that some accountability ought to be imposed on trial courts in such matters, especially when the accused are incarcerated for a long time. “This is one but many of the cases with the similar scenario. Time and again, I have expressed that some accountability deserve to be fixed and when I say accountability it is not only procedural one but possibly on the courts, who are in seized of such trials and particularly when the accused are incarcerated for such a long time,” the judge said. .She opined that due to a lack of accountability on the prosecution, accused persons continue to remain in jail for long periods while awaiting trial. .The High Court proceeded to allow the bail plea in the present case, and also ordered the trial court (again) to conclude the trial within 6 months. .Advocates Sandesh Manikhedka, Anil Yadav and Dipika Gupta appeared for the accused bail applicant, Padhy. Additional public prosecutor SR Agarkar appeared for State. .[Read order]