Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Gopisetty Harikrishna – Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4685 of 2020
Decided On : 09-05-2022
Interim Bail - Delay in Release - The court granted interim bail to the petitioner, but the petitioner was not released, leading to the court's concern over the delay and the need for corrective mechanisms to ensure timely compliance with court orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was granted interim bail by the court, but despite the order, the petitioner was not released and continued to be in custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court expressed concern over the delay in the release of the petitioner and directed the High Courts to provide details of similar non-compliance cases within six weeks. The court also emphasized the need for corrective mechanisms to address such situations.
Issues: Delay in the release of the petitioner despite the court's order, concern over the interpretation of the court's order by the Trial Court, and the need for corrective mechanisms to ensure timely compliance with court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely compliance with court orders and directed the High Courts to provide details of non-compliance cases. The court also highlighted the need for corrective mechanisms to address similar situations in the future.
Final Decision: The court directed the High Courts to provide details of non-compliance cases within six weeks and emphasized the need for corrective mechanisms to ensure timely compliance with court orders.
ORDER :
1. On 28.09.2020 following order was passed by this Court:
Issue notice on the nature of offence and sentence, returnable on 06.11.2020.
Dasti in addition.
Liberty to serve the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.05.2011 and has thus completed more than 9 years of actual imprisonment.
Considering the entirety of the matter, we grant interim bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner shall be produced before the Trial Court within three days from today and the Trial Court shall release him on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file additional documents.”
2. Despite the aforestated order the petitioner was not bailed out and was still kept in custody, which aspect is clear from the facts recorded in the subsequent order dated 20.04.2022. The order dated 25.04.2022, thereafter passed certain directions seeking explanation from the concerned Police and Jail officials.
3. The response filed on behalf of the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore states that the order dated 28.09.2020 was received in the Prison on 06.10.2020 at which point in time, because of Covid-19 Pandemic restrictions, the movement of the prisoner was not immediately possible. However, the bail application on behalf of the prisoner was prepared on 22.10.2020 and was filed in Court on 29.10.2020. The application came up before the Court on 29.10.2020 when the concerned Court passed the following order:
Hence, returned.”
4. The resultant effect was that despite the order, the petitioner continued to be in custody.
5. The explanation given by the Registry of this Court shows that the order was transmitted through electronic mode immediately but the physical copy was sent in due course, which is why it was received in the Jail on 06.10.2020.
6. This case portrays very sorry state of affairs.
7. The reason why stipulation was inserted in the order that “the petitioner shall be produced before the Trial Court within three days and the Trial Court shall release him on interim bail” was to expedite the process. The reason was not to put any limitation of a specified period within which time alone the bail could be availed and not thereafter. The order was construed by the concerned Trial Court as if, after the expiry of three days, the petitioner had no right to be released on bail.
8. We are surprised that a Judicial Officer had read the order passed by this Court, in the manner as it gets disclosed from his order.
9. We would normally have considered it as defiance of the order passed by this Court but at this stage we rest content by observing that the High Court shall take up the matter on its Administrative Side; call for an explanation from the concerned Presiding Officer of the Trial Court and deal with the matter on the administrative side.
10. This is not to say that whatever we have observed shall be taken as final determination. The matter shall be dealt with purely on its merits on the administrative side.
11. This also poses a question whether similar kind of situations have arisen or do arise despite the order passed by this Court. A corrective mechanism shall therefore, have to be put in place, especially where the proceedings are initiated through the Legal Services Authority.
12. We, therefore, pass following general directions:
One of the ways to address the problem would be to have a register and maintain the figures as to in how many matters orders directing release of the persons on bail were issued and if out of such total number of matters, any person stood deprived of the opportunity of being released on bail
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
