THE Supreme Court, on Thursday, reiterated the need for proper prioritisation of bail applications while granting interim protection from coercive action against the petitioner in a case, even as it expressed concern over the long and indefinite adjournments in matters relating to pre-arrest bail..A division bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose made these observations while hearing an appeal filed by businessperson Sanjay Tapriya, whose anticipatory bail application had been admitted by the Allahabad High Court on February 22, 2021, without interim relief and since then, the matter has remained pending with the High Court. Tapriya told the bench that on January 7 this year, he moved an application for urgent listing and the high court had ordered the same to be listed after two weeks, yet the matter did not appear in the court's business. He is apprehending arrest in relation to a first information report for offences under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act..The Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI], informed the court that it had already filed its counter affidavit before the High Court and even a rejoinder affidavit thereto had also been filed, and there had not been any delay caused by the CBI in consideration of the application moved by the petitioner..Also read: SC concerned with HC's denial of bail to a convict who was behind bars for 12 years, with his appeal pending, calls for data on similar cases.Stressing the need for proper prioritisation of such bail applications, the bench referred to an order by a three-judge bench last month in the case of Rajesh Seth vs. State of Chhattisgarh, in which the Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar situation of long and indefinite adjournments in a matter relating to pre-arrest bail, had indicated the desirability of early consideration of the prayers made in the bail application; and while making a request to the single judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court to dispose of the pre-arrest bail application expeditiously, had granted interim relief to the petitioner..The bench adopted the same view as that of Rajesh Seth to grant interim protection to the accused. It directed: "In the present matter too, with a request to the High Court to take up the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner for consideration at the earliest and if the same could not be disposed of for any reason, to consider the prayer for interim relief on its own merits, it is provided that until such consideration of the matter by the High Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner".
THE Supreme Court, on Thursday, reiterated the need for proper prioritisation of bail applications while granting interim protection from coercive action against the petitioner in a case, even as it expressed concern over the long and indefinite adjournments in matters relating to pre-arrest bail..A division bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose made these observations while hearing an appeal filed by businessperson Sanjay Tapriya, whose anticipatory bail application had been admitted by the Allahabad High Court on February 22, 2021, without interim relief and since then, the matter has remained pending with the High Court. Tapriya told the bench that on January 7 this year, he moved an application for urgent listing and the high court had ordered the same to be listed after two weeks, yet the matter did not appear in the court's business. He is apprehending arrest in relation to a first information report for offences under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act..The Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI], informed the court that it had already filed its counter affidavit before the High Court and even a rejoinder affidavit thereto had also been filed, and there had not been any delay caused by the CBI in consideration of the application moved by the petitioner..Also read: SC concerned with HC's denial of bail to a convict who was behind bars for 12 years, with his appeal pending, calls for data on similar cases.Stressing the need for proper prioritisation of such bail applications, the bench referred to an order by a three-judge bench last month in the case of Rajesh Seth vs. State of Chhattisgarh, in which the Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar situation of long and indefinite adjournments in a matter relating to pre-arrest bail, had indicated the desirability of early consideration of the prayers made in the bail application; and while making a request to the single judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court to dispose of the pre-arrest bail application expeditiously, had granted interim relief to the petitioner..The bench adopted the same view as that of Rajesh Seth to grant interim protection to the accused. It directed: "In the present matter too, with a request to the High Court to take up the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner for consideration at the earliest and if the same could not be disposed of for any reason, to consider the prayer for interim relief on its own merits, it is provided that until such consideration of the matter by the High Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner".
