Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1995 (8) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1995 (8) TMI 345 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues involved: Guidelines for release of under-trial prisoners, setting up of additional courts, provision of experts to investigating agencies, simplifying prosecution sanction procedure, compliance with Section 167 of CrPC, revision of under-trial categories in Bihar jails.

Guidelines for release of under-trial prisoners: The Supreme Court had previously laid down guidelines for the release of under-trial prisoners who were languishing in jails due to delayed case disposal. The responsibility of enforcing these guidelines now lies with the respective High Courts, as releasing under-trials without considering specific case details may be risky. The Court emphasized the need to balance sympathy for under-trials with the impact of serious crimes on society, and urged High Courts to oversee the judge-strength of subordinate judiciary and ensure effective implementation of guidelines.

Setting up of additional courts and provision of experts: A petition was filed seeking general orders based on guidelines from previous cases, including inquiries into setting up additional courts, providing more experts to investigating agencies, and simplifying prosecution sanction procedures. The Court highlighted the importance of High Courts monitoring and implementing these guidelines to ensure expeditious case disposal and prevent under-trials from languishing in jails due to financial constraints.

Compliance with Section 167 of CrPC and revision of under-trial categories: The Court acknowledged the concern for under-trials unable to meet monetary obligations for bail, emphasizing the need for High Courts to review such cases and provide appropriate directions for effective guideline implementation. Instead of repeating general directions, High Courts were reminded to ensure prompt case disposal and develop mechanisms for early resolution. The Court concluded that the petitions had served their purpose and should be disposed of, leaving further implementation to the High Courts for better monitoring and enforcement.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates