MP High Court Directs Enquiry Into Conduct Of Public Prosecutor For 'Adopting Delaying Tactics' By Joining Hands With Accused

Hearing the bail application moved by the Applicant U/S 439 CRPC, Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed-

This conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor cannot be appreciated. Accordingly, the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Department, State of M.P., Bhopal and the District Magistrate Bhind are directed to look into the conduct of Smt. Hemlata Arya, Special Public Prosecutor, in not cooperating with the Trial Court for recording of examination-in-chief of the prosecution witness Subedar Khan. The authorities are directed to review as to whether the continuation of Smt. Hemlata Arya as Special Public Prosecutor will be in the interest of justice or not? However, it is directed that the present case be immediately withdrawn from the Special Public Prosecutor.

The Applicant was seeking bail on the ground of delay in trial. However, on examining the order sheets of the lower court, the Court observed that the Applicant was adopting delaying tactics to prolong the proceeding and was hand in gloves with the Special Public Prosecutor-

From the order-sheets, it is clear that the defence counsel are also adopting delaying tactics and unfortunately it appears that the Special Public Prosecutor has also joined hands with the defence counsel. On 3/3/2022 when two witnesses, namely, Anil Sharma and Subedar Khan were present and the cross-examination of Anil Sharma was being deferred only at the request of the counsel for the defence, then what was the hitch before the Special Public Prosecutor in not getting the examination-in-chief of the another witness Subedar Khan recorded, is beyond the understanding of this Court. From order dated 3/3/2022, it is clear that at least on two occasions the Trial Court had requested the Special Public Prosecutor to get the examination-in-chief of Subedar Khan recorded, but she refused to do so.

With regard to the bail application, the Court held that the same was liable to be rejected as the Applicant himself was to be blamed for the delay-

From the order-sheets, it is clear that the counsel for the applicant is also adopting all sorts of delaying tactics to avoid cross- examination of the witnesses. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for grant of bail.

With the aforesaid observations, the bail application was rejected and accordingly dismissed.

Case Title : Brijmohan Sharma Vs. State of M.P.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 127

Click Here To Read/Download Order