Delay in trial due to police failure in ensuring presence of witnesses recurring theme in Uttar Pradesh: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the inability of the State police to deliver summons and carry out court-directed coercive processes to secure the presence of witnesses during a criminal trial violates fundamental rights of an accused including their right to a speedy trial and timely access to bail. [Bhanwar Singh v State].The Court said that this was "a recurring theme in the criminal law process in the State of Uttar Pradesh" which regularly arose in bail applications before the High Court.Justice Ajay Bhanot made the observation while allowing a bail application.The case records in this case revealed that due to a failure by the police to serve summons or execute coercive processes to secure the presence of witnesses, the criminal trial was being delayed for no fault of the accused. Observing that this is a larger problem, the Court remarked,"Prisoners spend long years in jail simply because the police authorities do not ensure the appearance of witnesses on a timely basis in defiance of orders passed by the trial courts. Failure of justice becomes more acute because many of the prisoners belong to marginalized sections of the society and are incapacitated by poverty and legal illiteracy.".The Court further observed that the proper administration of the right to bail was being hindered due to such lapses by the police. "Inability of the police authorities to serve summons and execute coercive measures issued by the learned trial courts in the specified time frame is an endemic problem and a major bottleneck in the criminal law process. This deficiency in functioning of the police results in absence of witnesses in courts and causes interminable delays in trials and strikes at the root of public faith in the justice delivery system," the Court opined..Such non-compliance with court orders would also constitute statutory offences and contempt of court, the judge added. However, given the large scale of such non-compliances, he observed that initiating contempt proceedings would only lead to multiplicity of court proceedings and drain the scarce resources of the police."Scale of the problem is so vast that taking out criminal or contempt proceedings in every matter against erring officials would also mire the police and other State departments in excessive and avoidable litigation," the Court said..To remedy the problem, the Court proposed tasking particular police officers with the responsibility of ensuring the appearance of witnesses in court at different levels.This approach would only succeed if important police officers are selected for these positions at each level, the Court added.The Court also suggested that such nodal officers should be empowered to coordinate with police forces at various levels, be it District, Zone, State or inter-State..The Court made these observations while granting bail to an accused man, whose trial was found to be moving at a snail's pace on account of the failure of the police to execute processes to secure the presence of witnesses. .The judge reiterated the prolonged incarceration of an accused due to delays in trial violates his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. .The Court further opined that the State needs create or review an effective system to hold the police department accountable in such matters."The police cannot deny its statutory duty to compel prompt appearance of witnesses by timely service of summons and execution of warrants on orders of the courts. The State cannot abnegate its constitutional obligation to protect the fundamental rights of prisoners who suffer prolonged incarceration due to delayed trials. Neither institution can escape accountability," the judge said..Advocate Bratendra Singh represented bail applicant..[Read Order]