In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court by the Director of Prosecution, Tis Hazari, Delhi against an order dated 06-10-2026 by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed against the State which was to be recovered from the petitioner’s salary, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia stayed the impugned order to the extent of recovery from the petitioner till next date, but refused to do so for the State.
The cost was imposed on State since despite repeated Passovers till 11:30 AM, no public prosecutor appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner contended that even though the ASJ was informed about the acute shortage of public prosecutors and additional prosecutors, an issue pending before the Division Bench of this Court, he imposed the said cost.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: Uninvoked Corporate Guarantee Can Constitute Financial Debt Under IBC
The Court noted that the impugned order was an expression of the anguish of the trial judge, who faces pressure of overflowing dockets and expectation of the superior courts regarding expeditious disposal of bail matters and even trials. However, it was stated that direction for recovery of the cost from the petitioner’s salary in absence of any specific observation regarding any malfeasance, was improper. Hence, the Court stayed the operation of the impugned order to the extent of recovery from the petitioner till the next date.
However, the senior counsel for the petitioner continued to press for staying the complete impugned order including the cost imposed against the State. To this, the Court said that the senior counsel appeared for the petitioner, not the State and that shortage of prosecutors has become a perennial problem, which severely impacts the disposals of criminal trials including bail matters. The Court said that this was not a new problem and that there was nothing on record to show any serious steps taken by the State. Noting that the State had not even challenged the impugned order, the Court held that it would not stay the imposition of cost on the State.
The Court directed the matter to be relisted on 03-02-2027.
