A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath was also told that the trial court and police were violating the Supreme Court direction, which attracts contempt of court proceedings against the authorities concerned.
"If the Supreme Court order is followed that police should not arrest persons unless they are required and courts should not authorise detentions in a mechanical manner, at least 1,460 undertrial prisoners will get the benefit, who can walk out of the jail immediately," the Delhi government's senior standing counsel Rahul Mehra said.
He further said that both the police and trial courts are responsible for putting these prisoners behind bars, so in violation of the Supreme Court direction they are liable to face contempt proceedings.
Mehra further urged the court that some direction can be passed under Section 227 (If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing) of the CrPC.
DSLSA also said the court can issue directions to all the district judges here to hold consultations with other judges to look into the release of undertrial prisoners.
The bench then asked the Delhi government to give a status report related to number of public prosecutors engaged in all trial courts and infrastructure provided to them.
The report was sought after the court was told that many undertrials are behind bars because the hearings on their bail pleas could not be completed due to lack of prosecutors.
"Though 3 more UTPs have been granted bail, sureties are yet to be furnished for them. So far as the 47 women UTPs who have completed half of the period of sentence in lesser offence in case of multiple offences are concerned, it is stated that 22 were released as on December 10, 2015," the report said.
Tihar had filed its report after the court's direction came during a hearing when the bench took suo motu cognizance of Supreme Court directions which had said that high courts could direct respective state governments, under whose jurisdiction the jails fell, to take care of prisoners' complaints about lack of infrastructure facilities, food, hygiene and health care among other things.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
