Why VC facility not used to produce accused before trial court? Supreme Court asks Maharashtra

The Supreme Court recently directed the Maharashtra government to explain why video conference facilities were not being used for the production of the accused during the proceedings before the trial court [Aftab Anwar Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra]..A Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice R Mahadevan called upon the Home Secretary of the State to file an affidavit in this regard. The Court also asked the Secretary to make it clear whether video conference facilities are available in all the courts in Maharashtra and the funds released by the State for the installation of such facilities in courts and jails."Let the Secretary Home, State of Maharashtra file an affidavit as to why Video Conferencing facilities are not being used for production of accused in Court for the purpose of recording of evidence or otherwise? He/she shall also state in the affidavit as to whether such facilities are in place in the State of Maharashtra or not? It shall also be pointed out in the affidavit as to how much of amount was released for installation of Video Conferencing in the Courts and the Jails and what is the present ground situation," the Court said in its October 22 order. .The Court also directed the Registrar General of Bombay High Court to file an affidavit regarding the same..The Court was hearing a case concerning one Aftab Anwar Shaikh booked under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985 for carrying 84 grams of Mephedrone. Before the top court, the accused argued that trial in his case was adjourned 30 times as he was not produced before the Court. "As per the information submitted out of 44 dates, the matter was adjourned as the accused was not produced in Court on 30 occasions.On 8 occasions, the counsel for the petitioner was not present, hence the case had to be adjourned, however, out of these 8 hearings, on 6 occasions, the accused was not produced. On 6 occasions Presiding Officer did not hold the Court," the Court noted.Hence, it proceeded to seek details from the State and the High Court about video conference facilities in the courts..Advocates Vidhi Pankaj Thaker, Advait Tamhankar and Prastut Mahesh Dalvi appeared for Sheikh.Advocates Anand Dilip Landge and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande appeared for State of Maharashtra..[Read Order]