The Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed serious concern over repeated failures by Maharashtra police and prison authorities to produce an undertrial prisoner before the trial court, calling the lapse a direct threat to the constitutional right to a fair trial and personal liberty.
The remarks came while hearing a miscellaneous application in a criminal special leave petition filed by Shashikumar alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jumrani against the State of Maharashtra.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
Background of the Case
The matter was listed before the apex court to examine a personal report submitted by the Additional Director General of Police (Prisons), Maharashtra. The report was sought after the court noticed a disturbing pattern in the ongoing trial.
Out of 85 dates fixed for trial, the petitioner was not produced before the trial court on 55 occasions. This meant that for most hearings, the accused was absent-not by choice, but due to administrative failures.
The bench hearing the matter comprised Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan.
What the Authorities Told the Court
An affidavit placed on record included a detailed chart explaining the non-production. The primary reason cited was the non-availability of police escorts to take the undertrial from jail to court.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
The jail authorities also stated that they had repeatedly requested permission to allow the accused to appear through video conferencing, but no formal orders were passed by the trial court, leaving them unable to proceed.
When questioned by the bench on whether other prisoners were produced on those dates, the response was that separate production warrants were issued court-wise, requiring individual escorts for each prisoner.
Court’s Sharp Observations
The bench was unconvinced.
“Prima facie, the court is unable to accept that individual escorts must be provided court-wise,” the judges observed, pointing out that prisoners are usually taken together in a common vehicle with shared security.
But the court’s concern went deeper than logistics.
“The more worrying aspect,” the bench noted, “is that it is the accused who ultimately loses out on his valuable constitutional right to a fair trial and liberty.”
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
The judges underlined that an undertrial has a vital right to be present in court-not only to face proceedings but also to raise grievances about prison treatment, which the court can then address.
“The prisoner has to bear the brunt when authorities pass the buck and avoid responsibility,” the bench remarked.
Taking a stern view, the Supreme Court made it clear that casual blame-shifting between police and jail authorities would not be tolerated.
“We will not shut our eyes to this,” the bench said, stressing that accountability must be fixed. The court rejected the State’s argument that requisitions were sent police station–wise or court–wise, calling it a “lame excuse.”
The judges pointed out that even if there were genuine resource constraints, nothing prevented authorities from clubbing prisoners together and arranging a common escort.
“There is no law or rule prohibiting this,” the bench observed, adding that emerging situations require practical and proactive solutions.
Notices Issued, Officers Summoned
Finding “total casualness” on the part of both police and jail officials, the Supreme Court issued show-cause notices to senior officers, asking why proceedings should not be initiated against them for dereliction of duty.
The officers directed to remain personally present before the court with their explanations are:
- Ashutosh Dumbare, Commissioner of Police, Thane
- P.J. Jagtap, Superintendent, Kalyan Jail
- C.R. Devkate, Additional Senior Jailor (Judicial)
The court also noted that steps claimed to have been taken after the issue surfaced were “too little and too late.”
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Delay Hurdle in Land Compensation Appeals, Applies Limitation Act
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court directed that the matter be listed again on 24 February 2026, at the top of the board, with the concerned officers required to appear in person along with their written explanations.
Case Title: Shashikumar alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jumrani vs State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Misc. Application No. 183/2026 in SLP (Crl) No. 12690/2025
Decision Date: 3 February 2026
