Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. In Viswanathan2 referring to the principle laid down in Tupakula Appa Rao1, Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam [(2017) 15 SCC 67], Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote [1980(2) SCC 559] and Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra [2014 (16) SCC 623], learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held as under:

"43. It is not end of the matter herein for the reason that in similar cases empty in number, the inaction of the police since resulting grave injustice and curtailment of the personal liberty and right to life of the accused persons languishing in jails without even entitlement to the period of remand for set off or to count for the default bail, irrespective of entitlement to claim anticipatory bail or regular bail, for such an injustice to be arrested; it is necessary to direct following the expression of the Apex Court Constitution Bench in Ramchandra Rao supra and the importance of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India including for the speedy investigation KL,J and production of the accused to face the enquiry/trial and from the expression of the Apex Court in Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, in Refence case, particularly from para 56 imposing liability on the State Legal Services Authority and Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority of every state in coordination with the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority of every District including each of the Mandal Legal Services Committees in both the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are by virtue of the expression of the Apex Court in Guideline No.56.3 supra hereby required as specifically shall see that where the accused is in jail as a pretrial prisoner and in more than one case and so far not pretrial or pending trial prisoner, which includes under trial prisoners where trial not commenced from production of the accused before the concerned Court, applications/memos cause to be filed under Section 267 Cr.P.C. for the learned Magistrates/Sessions Judges/designated Special Courts of original jurisdiction concerned to secure the presence of the accused and to take the accused to judicial custody on P.T. warrant in the crimes or calendar cases or other special cases or sessions cases pending before them.
44. Further the Director General of Police of both the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are also directed hereby to direct the Superintendents of Police or the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner/Assistant Commissioners concerned, to exercise their duty and power to the extent applicable from the police manual with Standing Orders and instructing and from Section 36 Cr.P.C. in every month coordinating meeting to see that where an accused is shown involved in a crime to cause verify if at all involved in more than one crime and if not produced in the other crimes, to see that they shall be cause produced if in jail on P.T. warrant under Section 267 Cr.P.C., leave about if enlarged on bail in any one or more cases and if not granted bail in other cases for their production in those other cases so that the accused may not KL,J loose the benefit of period of set off and period of entitlement to the default bail respectively under Section 428 and 167 Cr.P.C.