Expressing displeasure over the conduct of two magisterial courts for sitting over a judicial remand for almost nine years, the Orissa High Court has sought reports from the SDJMs Jagatsinghpur and Bhubaneswar explaining under what circumstances an order passed on June 25, 2013 was not acted upon for as long as nine years. Justice Sashikanta Mishra has asked the Judicial Magistrates of the two sub-divisions to submit their reports to the High Court by August 4.
The matter inter alia relates to the CMD of Artha Tatwa group Pradeep Sethy, who is in jail custody ever since he was arrested in May 2013 as multiple cases were registered against him in chit fund-related matters. While Sethy was in judicial custody for a case registered against him at the Kharavel Nagar police station in Bhubaneswar, a similar case was also registered against him at the Jagatsinghpur police station on May 10, 2013.
The Jagatsinghpur SDJM on June 25, 2013 ordered to send a wireless text message to the SDJM Bhubaneswar asking whether Sethy could be spared to his court. Since then, neither Sethy was produced before the Court of SDJM Jagatsinghpur nor was he remanded to police custody. But the charge-sheet in the same case was submitted on August 6, 2013 showing the accused as “remanded”.
When no step was taken by the courts in his case, it was only in February this year that Sethy approached the Jagatsinghpur Sessions court for bail. The court rejected his bail application on the ground that he had not been produced or remanded in the said case nor had he surrendered. Challenging the court’s decision, Sethy approached the High Court seeking bail.
Arguing for Sethy, his counsel Milan Kanungo said the period from May 10, 2013 to date should be treated as “deemed to be in custody” for his client; and if the accused is going to be convicted in the same case, his sentence would be for a maximum term of seven years. “The accused has spent more than that period in custody,” the advocate argued.
Granting bail to Sethy, Justice Mishra observed that the lackadaisical manner in which the matter has been dealt with is a case of serious concern as it strikes at certain fundamental pillars of not only criminal procedure but also the Constitutional principles of liberty. “This is a classic case where the petitioner, for no fault of his own, was deprived of making a legitimate prayer for being released on bail,” he observed.