“Matters pertaining to personal liberty shall be taken up and decided at the earliest. It is a matter of concern that despite repeated Orders, the same situation continues,” a two-judge Bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar Bench lamented.
—
LAST week, the Supreme Court asked high courts across the country to ensure that bail applications are listed at the earliest for hearing, observing that delay in hearing bail matters could be detrimental to the liberty of a person.
A two-judge Bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar passed an Order to this effect. The Bench directed its registry to send a copy of its Order to all high courts for compliance.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by one Himanshu Gupta. He was aggrieved by an Order of the Chhattisgarh High Court adjourning his anticipatory bail application without giving any fixed date.
Gupta is an accused in a first information report (FIR) under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Later, Sections 467, 468, 409 and 471 of the IPC were also added.
On December 6, 2023, when his petition came up for hearing, the high court called for a case diary and directed: “List this case in its chronological order.”
Disapproving the Order, the Bench observed that such an Order sans definiteness in the matter relating to anticipatory bail or regular bail, that too after admitting the matter, would definitely delay due consideration of the application and such an eventuality will be detrimental to the liberty of a person.
“It is taking into account such aspects that this court held that such matters pertaining to personal liberty shall be taken up and decided at the earliest. It is a matter of concern that despite repeated Orders, the same situation continues,” the Bench lamented.
The Bench asked the high court to decide the pending anticipatory bail application filed by Gupta within four weeks. It also granted interim protection from arrest to him in the meantime.
The Bench, however, clarified that the grant of interim protection would not influence the consideration of the bail application moved by Gupta and it should be considered on its own merits.
Click here to read the order.
