Sachin Yadav v. State

$~11.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 294/2017 SACHIN YADAV ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anil Mittal & Ms. Komal Aggarwal, Advocates.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 28.03.2017 Since long dates for trial were being given by the Trial Court, this Court had called for a report from the Trial Court with regard to pendency of the cases before it. A communication dated 02.03.2017 has been received from the learned Presiding Officer disclosing reasons for giving of long dates.

Firstly, it is disclosed that there is only one Court Room No.19, which is exclusively meant for examination of vulnerable witnesses. The said room is not always available and, consequently, recording of evidence of such witnesses gets delayed.

It is also disclosed that the learned ASJ is having pendency of 914 cases. The learned ASJ has the Special Court under the POCSO Act and is

also doing the work of judicial/ police remand in cases registered in 17 police stations. Applications for recording statement of the prosecutrix/ victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. relating to the jurisdiction of the 17 police stations are also marked to the Court of the learned ASJ. In my view, it would be appropriate that the aforesaid position is brought to the notice of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice so that administratively the situation could be looked at and wherever improvements are feasible, they are brought about. Let the Registry place the report dated 02.03.2017 sent by the learned ASJ along with this order before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side.

The petition stands disposed of.

VIPIN SANGHI, J MARCH 28, 2017 B.S. Rohella