Ensure VC facilities functional for virtual production of accused for custody extension: Bombay High Court to Principal District Judges

The Bombay High Court recently took exception to jail superintendents in Maharashtra not producing accused before trial courts for extension of judicial custody [Sushil Lohiya v. CBI & Anr.].A bench of Justices PB Varale and SM Modak queried why technology and video conference facilities were not being put to use for production of accused if the same was not possible physically. The bench also said that the concerned judge seized of the matter may mention in the order that virtual production is allowed. “Every one is aware that for judicial custody virtual production is recognized by Code of Criminal Procedure. So, why Superintendents of jail can wait for the orders from the courts allowing the virtual production. At the same time, we also feel that a Judge seized of the matter may also mention in the order that virtual production is permitted when physical production is not possible for some reasons. We are saying this only when there is an extension of remand till filing of the charge-sheet,” the High Court observed. To ensure virtual production of accused, the Bench directed all principal district judges to verify whether or not video conference facility in place is functional and if not, to take steps to ensure that they work seamlessly..The Bench was hearing a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a father whose son was in judicial custody in a case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).The son was in CBI custody till March 8, after which he was remanded to judicial custody till March 22. On that date, his son was neither produced physically nor virtually, and his custody was extended till April 5.The father then filed a writ petition in High Court calling for his son to be produced in Court or setting aside the order granting judicial custody and immediate release of his son.The prosecution pointed out that the son had not been produced as there was no police escort to bring him to court..While the Bench did state that the Special CBI Judge ought to have given reasons for extending custody without producing the accused in court, it was of the opinion that the same was merely an irregularity in the order. It, therefore, dismissed the petition."The report filed by the Investigating Officer does not give some satisfactory reason for non-production of the accused. …Even though there are certain defects, we feel that they are not of such nature, so as to issue of writ of habeas corpus. So we do not think that writ can be entertained. It is liable to be dismissed,” the Bench held..In the order uploaded today, the High Court noted that its administrative side had earlier issued directions to all principal district judges to conduct meetings with jail authorities, so as to secure more police escorts.The order also noted that considering courts are scattered across the State, internet facility may not be available in remote locations.“…during this COVID-19 pandemic period, Courts could not function to their fullest extent. So there is a need to revive all the existing systems. Even we are told that in some Courts in State of Maharashtra, State of Maharashtra through Home Department has made available Video Conferencing setup,” the Bench noted..In view of this, the Bench directed the principal district judges to verify whether these meetings about availability of escort are being conducted at present or not.“If such meetings are conducted, learned PDJs to verify whether reports are sent to the High Court Administration or or if the meeting having been discontinued for some reasons, PDJs are directed to see that such meetings are periodically held,” the Bench directed..Senior Advocate Abad Ponda with Advocates Sajal Yadav, Shalabh Saxena, Mitul Shah, Harsh Ghangurde, Karma Vivan, Sudarshan Khawase and Raj Raut appeared for petitioner.Advocate Kuldeep Patil appeared for CBI and Additional Public Prosecutor MH Mhatre appeared for Maharashtra[Read order]