New Delhi: The Supreme Court has summoned the Thane police commissioner and senior prison officials to appear in person and explain why proceedings should not be initiated against them for dereliction of duty and a “casual approach” in matters affecting the life and liberty of an undertrial prisoner.
A bench of justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan expressed concern over the fact that the petitioner, Shashikumar, also known as Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jumrani, was not produced before the trial court on 55 out of 85 dates fixed during the course of the trial.
The bench said this amounted to a grave infringement of constitutional safeguards guaranteed to persons in custody, while also rejecting the Maharashtra government’s defence of limited resources and inadequate police escorts.
“We feel that in this case, responsibility has to be fixed and a message sent to all concerned authorities to act as per the dictates of the constitutional rights of the person who is incarcerated in the prison under their control, as also the obligation of the police to ensure that an adequate number of personnel are deployed for such production,” the court said in its order released on Tuesday. Jumrani, accused in a case of attempted murder and rioting, was represented by advocate Sana Raees Khan.
The Supreme Court took up the matter on February 3 after senior Maharashtra police and prison officials submitted a report, as directed in an earlier order in December 2025. The report cited a lack of police escorts due to manpower shortages as the main reason the accused was not produced in court.
However, the bench found this explanation “unacceptable”. Referring to the affidavit and an annexed chart, the court noted that the state had failed to explain why common escorts could not have been arranged for multiple prisoners scheduled to be produced before different courts on the same day.
“Prima facie, the court is unable to accept the fact that individual escorts should be given court-wise for production of undertrials,” noted the bench, adding that prisoners are ordinarily transported together in an appropriate vehicle with a common escort and then produced before their respective courts.
The bench described as “more worrying” the fact that it was ultimately the prisoner who suffered the consequences of the police and jail authorities shifting responsibility between themselves.
“The accused/prisoner loses out on his valuable constitutional right to a fair trial and liberty…the vital right to appear before the court so as to address the court with regard to any complaint(s) he might have against his treatment or any other issue in prison,” the order said.
Taking strong exception to the state’s plea of resource constraints, the bench termed it a “lame excuse” and stressed that emerging situations required proactive administrative solutions.
“If at all it is correct that there is constraint of resources, then prisoners can be clubbed together, and common escort can be given. There is no rule or law not permitting the same,” said the court, holding both police and prison authorities guilty of “total casualness”.
The bench then issued notices to Ashutosh Dumbare, Thane police commissioner; PJ Jagtap, superintendent of prison, Kalyan Jail; and CR Devkate, additional senior jailor (judicial), asking them to explain why action should not be taken against them. The officers have been directed to remain physically present in court on February 24 to provide their explanations.
The bench also noted that steps claimed to have been taken by the authorities after the court’s intervention were “too late in the day” and “totally insufficient”.
In its December 2 order, while granting bail to the petitioner, who had spent over four years in custody without criminal antecedents, the court described the failure to produce him on most hearing dates as “appalling and shocking” and directed a personal inquiry to fix responsibility.