The Delhi High Court in the case Court On Its Own Motion Versus Director General Of Prisons, Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi observed wherein the suo motu petition is initiated with regard to the delay in formalities relating to acceptance of bail bonds by Jail Superintendents and issued a notice to the Director General of Prisons and the Standing Counsel, the Criminal of Delhi Government.
The bench headed by Justice Amit Mahajan in the case was hearing the matter.
The court directed while passing the bail order at times that the bail bond be directly furnished to the Jail Superintendent in order to facilitate the immediate release of accused or convict, instead of remitting him to the trial court.
The court in its order stated that the delay at the instance of the Jail Superintendent in accepting Bail Bonds which is not acceptable to the conscience of the said Court. Let the matter be registered as Sou Motu petition and numbered.
Therefore, the said issue came up before the court in a case in which the bench had suspended the sentence of a convict for the period of four weeks.
Later, an application was moved by the convict wherein it seeks for the modification of the order as due to delay in acceptance of bail bond by the Jail Superintendent, he was yet to be released.
It was also submitted before the court that the Jail Superintendent usually takes approximately between one to two weeks time before the bail bond is being accepted.
It has been prayed by the convict that he be directed to furnish the bail bond to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The court in the case observed and took note of the larger issue and pointed out that the object of granting bails and suspending sentences is to release the accused or convict from imprisonment.
The court observed that the interim bails are granted on medical grounds or some other exigencies, as expressed by the applicant.
The court in such kind of scenario fails to understand as to why the period of one to two weeks is to be taken by the Jail Superintendent for accepting the bail bonds.
The bench of Justice Mahajan in the case observed and has remarked that the Supreme Court has time and again reiterated the principle that ‘deprivation of Liberty for a single day is a day too many’.
The single bench also referred to the guidelines for the compliance of bail orders.
The Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition also passed directions to adopt the procedure termedas ‘FASTER’ for Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records, in order to reduce the delay caused in forwarding the orders granting bail to the Jail Authorities.
The court in the case also took note of a Rule in the Delhi High Rules & Orders as per which any order passed by the high court directing the release of the prisoner from jail is sent directly to the concerned jail authorities through Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records, FASTER cell.
The court in the case ordered registration of the suo motu case.
The Additional Standing Counsel Nandita Rao disputed the position and contended before the court that the case of the convict, who had sought modification of the order, is possibly an aberration and delay normally does not occur.
Therefore, the said Court requested her to accept the notice and file an appropriate affidavit.
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration on March 07, 2024.
