Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 860

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mr. Hemant Gupta, Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Chunni Lal Gaba - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director, Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 11581 of 2021; (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-04-2021 in CRMM No. 8112/2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
Decided On : 15-06-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, Senior Advocate, Mr. Harshit Sethi, Advocate, Mr. Keshavam Chaudhri, Advocate, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advocate, Ms. Ria Khanna, Advocate and Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Advocate, for the Appellant

Points Of Law : Accused has a right to hearing of his application for bail -In fact, denial of hearing is an infringement of right and liberty assured to an accused.

Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Application for bail - Mentioning memo – Court do not interfere with an interim order passed by High Court but court are constrained to pass present order as court are shocked to see that bail application Section 439 CrPC is not being listed for hearing for more than one year - Accused has right to hearing of his application for bail - Fact denial of hearing is an infringement of right and liberty assured to an accused.
Finding Of The Court :
Normally court do not interfere with an interim order passed by High Court but court are constrained to pass the present order as we are shocked to see that the bail application under Section 439 CrPC is not being listed for hearing for more than one year - Accused has right to hearing of his application for bail - Denial of hearing is an infringement of right and liberty assured to an accused - Even during pandemic when all Courts are making attempts to hear and decide all matter, non-listing of such an application for bail defeats administration of justice - Prevailing pandemic, at least half of judges should sit on alternative days so that hearing is accorded to person in distress - Non-listing of application for regular bail irrespective of seriousness or lack thereof of offences attributed to accused impinges upon liberty of person in custody.
Result : Petition disposed

ORDER

1. Permission to file SLP without certified/plain copy of impugned order granted.

2. The present special leave petition is directed against an order whereby the request for hearing of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pending since 28.02.2020, was declined.

3. Normally, we do not interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court but we are constrained to pass the present order as we are shocked to see that the bail application under Section 439 CrPC is not being listed for hearing for more than one year. The accused has a right to hearing of his application for bail. In fact, the denial of hearing is an infringement of right and liberty assured to an accused.

4. Even during the pandemic, when all Courts are making attempts to hear and decide all matter, non-listing of such an application for bail defeats the administration of justice. Under the prevailing pandemic, at least half of the judges should sit on alternative days so that hearing is accorded to the person in distress. Non-listing of application for regular bail, irrespective of seriousness or lack thereof, of the offences attributed to the accused, impinges upon the liberty of the person in custody.

5. Therefore, we hope that the High Court will be able to take up the application for bail at an early date so that the right of the accused of hearing of application for bail is not taken away by not entertaining such application on the mentioning memo.

6. Let the Registrar General of the High Court bring this Order to the notice of the competent authority to take remedial steps at the earliest.

7. The special leave petition stands disposed of accordingly.

8. Pending applications stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document