The Supreme Court has strongly criticized Maharashtra prison authorities for their failure to produce an undertrial prisoner in court on a significant number of occasions. The Court noted that the prisoner was not brought before the court on 55 out of 85 dates, which constitutes approximately 65% of the trial dates.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra expressed shock at the conduct of the state authorities. The Court emphasized that producing an accused before the court is not only essential for ensuring a speedy trial but also serves as a crucial safeguard against potential abuse and allows prisoners to voice grievances. The bench termed the lapse in producing the prisoner as "appalling and shocking" and stated that it represented a grave violation of a fundamental safeguard.

The Supreme Court has directed the Director General of Prisons in Maharashtra to conduct a personal inquiry into the matter. The director general is tasked with fixing responsibility for the lapses and taking appropriate action against those found responsible. The court has also warned that any attempt to protect or shield any individual will result in the Director General of Prisons being held personally accountable. The inquiry report, affirmed through a personal affidavit by the responsible officer, is expected within two months. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on February 3, 2026.

The case before the Supreme Court involved Shashi alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani, who had been in custody for over four years in connection with a 2021 attempt-to-murder case registered in Ulhasnagar. Jurmani had petitioned the Supreme Court for bail. His counsel, Sana Raees Khan, argued that her client was not produced before the trial court on 55 of the 85 trial dates.

The initial FIR alleged that Jurmani, along with others, had stabbed the victim and a police constable. However, the victim, who later died, stated that Jurmani only assaulted him with fists and kicks, while another accused stabbed the police constable. The police constable's statement did not name any accused but described their physical features. Jurmani's counsel further argued that he had no prior criminal record, and a co-accused in a similar position had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court granted Jurmani bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.

The Supreme Court has previously expressed concerns regarding the case, noting that Jurmani had been in jail for four years without charges being framed. The Court questioned the delay and the failure to secure the presence of co-accused, raising concerns about potential collusion between the prosecution and the accused.