Tadvi suicide: No video recording of bail hearing
Applicant's lawyer Abad Ponda had contended that provision makes video recording necessary for the trial and not for hearing bail pleas.
Mumbai: A special court on Wednesday decided that the bail proceedings of three doctors arrested in connection with Dr Payal Tadvi’s death case could be heard without video recording. Special judge Purusho-ttam Jadhav held that the bail pleas of arrested doctors — Hema Ahuja, Bhakti Mehare and Ankita Khandelwal —would be heard without video recording due to ‘unavailability’ of infrastructure.
The judge in his order observed that the advocate for informant — Gunratan Sadavarte —unnecessarily raised the issue of video recording.
“His submission brought the issue on front. It would certainly help the concerned authorities to think over the issue seriously and expeditiously and to take steps for providing infrastructures,” said the judge.
In light of advocate Sadavarte’s arguments the judge had observed that despite the amendment for video recording came into force a couple of years ago, still thousands of cases are being conducted without video recording.
The court on June 10 had asked the police to make arrangements for video recording of court proceedings in this case as per provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. However, the police informed the court that it has written to commissioner of police, DGP and the government for the same and their response was awaited.
Special public prosecutor Raja Thakre informed the judge that the police are unable to make the arrangements of video recording in the near future and therefore the time may be granted.
Applicant’s lawyer Abad Ponda had contended that provision makes video recording necessary for the trial and not for hearing bail pleas.
The judge observed that, “In is clear that though the video recording of the present proceeding requ-ires to be done, it is not possible due to non-availability of the infrastructure. The bail application requires to be decided expeditiously. Therefore, this court has no option, but to proceed without video recording.” The judge further said,
“It would not cause any prejudice to the interest of the informant. The grant or refusal of this application would not meet the ends of justice.”
Advocate Sadavarte has claimed that the state and the police machinery were “not serious” in respect of atrocities being done to people belonging to SC/ST.