Delhi: Court expressed displeasure, the judge said – Unarmed policemen on duty in the court are a matter of concern

Delhi: Court expressed displeasure, the judge said – Unarmed policemen on duty in the court are a matter of concern

When questioned about leaving without permission, the naib court told the judge that she was not the personal security officer (PSO) of the court and her duty ended with that of an additional public prosecutor.

A Delhi court has termed the prosecution ‘naib court’ i.e. the policemen on duty in the court coming to the courts ‘unarmed’ as a matter of concern. The court said that the arrival of Naib Court unarmed in the courts is a matter of greater concern at a time when the Supreme Court has also taken cognizance of the security threat to the judges of the lower court and the police has issued circulars in this regard. .

Naib Court refers to the policeman who acts to coordinate between the local police station, jail authorities and the court having jurisdiction in that particular area. They maintain a register of instructions or summons issued to police officers in respect of a case to ensure compliance with the orders of the court.

No personal security officer of the court: Naib Court
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sonu Agnihotri made the remarks while observing that the prosecution naib court left the court without permission. When questioned about leaving without permission, the naib court told the judge that she was not the personal security officer (PSO) of the court and her duty ended with that of an additional public prosecutor.

The judge in his order dated November 24 said, “The attitude of the Prosecution Naib Court appears to be strange, as as long as the court is still functioning, any service like delivery of an urgent order may be required.” He left the court.

He said, “The documents regarding the duties of the Naib Court should be called and it should be clarified whether the presence of the Prosecution Naib Court is mandatory or not till the functioning of the Court is continued, as there is a need for security for functioning in a criminal court. It has its own requirements. This is especially noticeable in this scenario, when the Supreme Court has also taken cognizance of the security threat to the judges of the lower courts. It is even more pertinent to mention that despite the circulars issued earlier by the police department, prosecution naib courts appear unarmed in the court.

Order for investigation on guilty officers
Further, the judge also noted that two orders directed to his police commissioner for clarification were also sent to the deputy commissioner of police (DCP) instead of sending him. The judge directed the top police officer to conduct an inquiry against the guilty officials.

“It appears that the police officers of the South-East district are not only failing to perform their duties, but also deliberate attempts are being made to not allow the orders of this court to reach the senior officers of Delhi Police. Huh.’

Accused’s bail plea rejected
The court gave these directions while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of ​​accused Himanshu Kumar. Himanshu is accused of stalking his ex-girlfriend and opening accounts on various social media platforms for posting pictures of her with a view to defame her.

The judge said, “The allegations against the accused are serious. It is reported that the accused is not only keeping an eye on the complainant through social media, but is also trying to interfere in the life of the complainant by sending cakes.

ASJ Agnihotri said, “The e-mails written by the accused to the complainant clearly show the intention of the accused to defame the victim. No ground is made out for granting anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application of accused Himanshu Kumar is dismissed.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *