Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Gupta @ Gugun vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 May, 2022
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Reserved on 29.04.2022 Delivered on 11.05.2022 Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1692 of 2022 Petitioner :- Dharmendra Gupta @ Gugun Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kali Charan Yadav,Jitendra Partap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the first informant as also learned AGA for the State.
The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer the petitioner from Central Jail (Karagar) Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad to District Jail (Karagra) Basti.
It is the petitioner's case that he is an under trial in cases which are pending at Basti on account of his malafide transfer to a jail in District Farrukhabad, his trial is being prolonged unnecessarily as he is not being produced before the trial Court(s) on the dates fixed in the cases pending against him.
Initially, when the petition was filed, learned AGA was directed to obtain instructions.
On the basis of the instructions received, learned AGA had informed the Court that it is true that the petitioner was not taken to Basti from jail on account of prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, however, he is now being produced before the Court.
However, since the instructions have not been received from the Fatehgarh Jail where the petitioner under incarceration. Counsel for the petitioner was required to file complete order sheet of the proceedings pending against him, at Basti.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner annexing thereto the order sheet of some trial against the petitioner.
Perusal of the supplementary affidavit reveals that there are a large number of cases are pending against the petitioner, namely -
(i) Case Crime No.117 of 2016, under Section 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Parsurampur, District Basti.
(ii) Case Crime No.317 of 2016 under Sections 392, 120-B IPC, Police Station Parasurampur, District Ballia.
(iii) Case Crime No.455 of 2016,under Sections 386 IPC, Police Station Chhawani, District Basti.
(iv) Case Crime No.51 of 2016, under Sections 457, 380 IPC, Police Station Chhawani, District Basti.
(v) Case Crime No.456 of 2016, under Sections 307, 353, 504, 506, 34 IPC & Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Chhawani, District Basti.
It is also stated in the supplementary affidavit that the aforenoted cases were registered on the same day upon the petitioner being arrested in Case Crime No.456 of 2016, under Sections 307, 353, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
(vi) Case Crime No.381 of 2016, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Chhawani, District Basti.
(vii) Case Crime No.735 of 2016 under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station Chhawani, District Basti.
(viii) Case Crime No.206 of 2016, under Sections 394/34 IPC, Police Station GRP, Gonda.
In paragraph 16 of the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner was last produced before the Court in Case Crime No.381 of 2016 (Sessions Trial No.100 of 2016), under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Chhawani and Case Crime No.735 of 2016, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station Chhawani, District Basti on 23.01.2020.
In Case Crime No.51 of 2016, under sections 457, 380 IPC, Police Station Chhawani, District Basti, the petitioner was lastly produced before the Court on 14.11.2019.
Trial in Case Crime No.51 of 2016, under Sections 457, 380 IPC is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti and its order sheet from 06.10.2018 to 10.03.2022 has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit. Its perusal reveals that the petitioner was produced in this case on 11.03.2022 though video conference, although, on earlier dates, namely, 06.01.2022, 19.01.2022, 01.02.2022 and 14.02.2022, he did not appear through Video Conference. This case is pending at the stage of the prosecution evidence and the prosecution witnesses have remained absent consistently, forcing issuance of non bailable warrants against the prosecution witnesses.
In Sessions Trial No.100 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.381 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC an order has been passed on 18.01.2021 directing production of the prosecution witnesses, failing which, further proceedings would be drawn by recording statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter it appears that the evidence has been adduced and the petitioner has appeared through Video Conference on 18.03.2021 but has not been produced through Video Conference on 05.01.2021 and 15.01.2021.
Looking into the large number of cases pending against the petitioners and since it is the discretion of the Jail authorities as to where an under trial is to be lodged. We are reluctant to interfere in this petition. It is equally true that in case an under trial is incarcerated in a jail outside the district, where trials are pending against him, he is liable to be produced on the dates fixed in the trials. This appears to have been done, by and large, but not consistently.
Under the circumstances, in our considered opinion, interest of justice would stand served in case, the jail authorities District Farrukhabad are directed to ensure that the petitioner is produced in the cases pending against him on the dates fixed therein, through Video Conference, positively, to ensure that the trial is not prolonged because of such no production.
From the order sheets filed on record, it appears that non production of the petitioner is in fact not the issue on account of which, the trial may be getting prolonged. The trials are getting prolonged primarily on account of non appearance or production of the prosecution witnesses.
Under the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to ensure that the petitioner is produced on every dates fixed in every trial, pending against him through Video Conference because every jail in U.P. has Video Conferencing facility, which is also available in the district Courts. Therefore, non production through Video Conference without any reason should not be accepted by the trial Court.
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the direction(s) above.
Order Date :- 11.5.2022 RKM