Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

High Court of Allahabad Criticizes Systemic Failures in Legal Representation for Marginalized Sections

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Allahabad, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Ajay Bhanot, has denied the bail application of Titu, who has been incarcerated since August 2017. The court highlighted the applicant's prolonged absence before the trial court and the systemic failures in providing legal aid to marginalized sections of society.

Titu, the applicant, was nominated in a criminal case in 2005 but was not arrested until August 10, 2017. He belongs to a marginalized section of society and did not have the resources or legal aid to apply for bail earlier. This is his first bail application.

The court noted the applicant's failure to appear before the trial court for over a decade. Despite his arrest in 2017, no satisfactory explanation was provided for this extended absence. The bail application itself was poorly drafted, indicating inadequate legal assistance.

Justice Bhanot emphasized the systemic failures in providing legal aid to marginalized individuals. He remarked, "Prima facie, it is evident that the applicant has been without legal aid since his arrest and even at this stage, the drafting has been less than satisfactory. No assistance is forthcoming from the applicant's counsel."

To address these deficiencies, the court appointed Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla as amicus curiae and directed the High Court Legal Services Committee to assist in filing an affidavit on behalf of the applicant. The learned District Judge of Meerut was instructed to provide all relevant details to the amicus curiae promptly.

Justice Bhanot stated, "Considering the urgency of the matter, the learned District Judge, Meerut shall ensure that all relevant details are provided to Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned amicus curiae promptly."

The denial of Titu's bail application underscores the ongoing challenges faced by marginalized individuals in accessing timely and adequate legal aid. The court's appointment of an amicus curiae reflects its commitment to ensuring justice is served, despite systemic shortcomings. This case highlights the need for systemic reforms to provide better legal support for marginalized sections of society.

 

Date of Decision: July 15, 2024

Titu VS State of U.P

 

Latest Legal News