Indefinite Adjournment In Anticipatory Bail Matter Is Detrimental To Valuable Right Of A Person: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that indefinite adjournment in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, that too after admitting it, is detrimental to the valuable right of a person.

"When a person is before the Court and that too in a matter involving personal liberty, least what is expected is for such a person to be given the result one way or the other, based on the merit of his case and not push him to a position of uncertainty or be condemned without being heard, when it matters", the bench headed by CJI NV Ramana observed

In this case, the petitioner filed an application under Section 438 Cr.PC seeking grant of anticipatory bail along with an I.A. seeking ex-parte ad-interim bail/interim protection.  On 17.01.2022, while admitting the application, the High Court directed it to listed for final hearing 'in due course'.

By filing an SLP before the Apex court, the petitioner submitted that till date, the matter has not been listed for hearing and no order has been passed about the interim protection during the pendency of the anticipatory bail application. 

The bench, also comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli disapproved the course adopted by the High Court as a matter of procedure.

"When an application for anticipatory bail was listed before the learned Single Judge, which was also accompanied by an application for ad-interim relief, the learned Judge should have decided the same one way or the other, so far as the ad-interim prayer or should have taken up for consideration after giving some reasonable time to the State. Even if admitted, the learned Judge should have listed the same for final disposal on a specific date, keeping in view the nature of relief sought in the matter. Not giving any specific date, particularly in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, is not a procedure which can be countenanced. We are of the considered view that this type of indefinite adjournment in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, that too after admitting it, is detrimental to the valuable right of a person.", the bench observed.

While granting interim protection from arrest, the bench requested the High Court to dispose of this anticipatory bail application preferably within a period of two weeks.

Headnotes

Case : Rajesh Seth vs State of Chhattisgarh | SLP (Crl) 1247/2022 | 21 Feb 2022

Coram: CJI NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli

Counsel: Adv Sundeep Srivastava for petitioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 200