'Very Casual, Will Summon Your Home Secretary': Supreme Court Raps Uttar Pradesh Govt For Not Complying With Directions For Speedy Trial
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 3) came down heavily on the State of Uttar Pradesh for lack of prompt compliance with its earlier order of examining the victim in a POCSO trial. The Court stated that it would seek a response from the Home Secretary if the serious lapses on the part of the State were not rectified within a week. The vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 3) came down heavily on the State of Uttar Pradesh for lack of prompt compliance with its earlier order of examining the victim in a POCSO trial. The Court stated that it would seek a response from the Home Secretary if the serious lapses on the part of the State were not rectified within a week.
The vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah took serious objection to the request of State Counsel to adjourn a bail matter for a month. The Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix could not be recorded as there was a condolence ceremony at the trial court.
Considering the inefficient conduct of the state counsels involved, Justice Amanullah expressed disappointment over the callousness with which the earlier order of the top court to examine the victim was not complied with on time. The Court was hearing a bail plea by the petitioner accused of raping a minor.
"The state counsel has been very casual! It is a mandatory order. You ought to have filed a petition of extension! Be very careful in court, now we are going to take serious note of this! It was your duty to file a proper application for an extension."
Remarking how the state failed to seek an extension for complying with the direction, the Court granted one week's time to the State of U.P. and clarified that non-compliance would lead to the Court summoning the State's Home Secretary.
"If it is not done within one week, we will call your Home Secretary here. We are at fault for letting these things happen....the fault is on our part, the message has to go! "
The petitioner who is charged with offences of rape, and criminal intimidation of a 16 years-old minor under Sections 376, 313, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 of the POCSO challenged the rejection order of the Allahabad High Court.
As per the FIR dated July 19, 2023, the petitioner had repeatedly assaulted the minor for over 6 months. Considering the gravity of the crime and the material available on record, the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in the impugned order dated November 30, 2023.
It may be noted that on a previous hearing before the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, the petitioner produced the order sheet of the trial court to show that none of the witnesses have been examined so far. In contrast, the counsel for the State claimed that 9 out of 10 witnesses had been examined. When the matter was listed again before a 3 judge bench led by Justice BR Gavai, the court directed that the prosecution examine the victim on or before June 30.
The matter is now listed for next Friday.
Counsels for Petitioner -Mr Rishabh Kapoor and Mr Lokesh Yadav
Counsels for Respondent- Senior Advocate Ms Garima Prasad (State Counsel for UP) and AoR Mr Vishnu Shankar Jain
Case Details: AVANISH VS. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH SLP(Crl) No. 004418 - / 2024