Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1659
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Hima Kohli, JJ.
Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 28841 of 2022 (Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 14-03-2022 in Pmlasc No. 1089 of 2021 05-09-2022 in Crlba No. 1021 of 2022 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
Decided On : 26-09-2022
Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vikram Chaudhuri, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocate, Mr. Adit Subramaniam Pujari, Advocate, Ms. Karishma Maria, Advocate, Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Advocate, Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate, Ms. Prabhneer Swani, Advocate, Ms. Arveen Sekhon, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses the right to expeditious disposal of bail applications, and delays in such disposals are inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed.
Headnote:
Delay condoned - Bail Application - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - [Article 21] - [Criminal Bail Application No. 1021 of 2022] - The court emphasized that keeping an application for bail pending for eight months is not consistent with the basic precepts governing the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the expeditious disposal of the bail application, highlighting the importance of the right to life and personal liberty.
Fact of the Case:
The application for bail has been pending before the High Court since 21 March 2022. The petitioner's counsel had addressed the court on two occasions and concluded the arguments by 19 July 2022. The court found the delay in disposing of the bail application inconsistent with the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the expeditious disposal of the bail application, emphasizing the importance of the right to life and personal liberty. The court also noted that a similar order had remained unimplemented and expected the order to be duly attended to this time.
Issues: Delay in disposing of the bail application, violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in disposing of the bail application was found to be inconsistent with the basic precepts governing the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the application, highlighting the importance of the right to life and personal liberty.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of, and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. The petitioner was permitted to apply before the learned Judge to whom the hearing of the application for bail has been assigned, with the direction that the application for bail shall be taken up and disposed of expeditiously.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. A Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has recused from hearing the application for bail on 5 September 2022.
3. Mr Kapil Sibal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed on the record the chronology of proceedings in Criminal Bail Application No 1021 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court. The chronology is extracted below as tendered before this Court:
| DATE | PARTICULARS |
| 21.03.2022 | Criminal Bail Application No. 1021 of 2022 was filed on behalf of the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court with prayer for regular bail and prayer for interim bail. |
| 25.03.2022 | Case came up for hearing for the first time. On the said date, the ED sought time to file an affidavit-in-reply and one week was granted to the Enforcement Directorate for the same. The matter was stood over to 08.04.2022. 08.04.2022 Case was stood over to 22.04.2022. |
| 22.04.2022 | Due to paucity of time, case was stood over to 25.04.2022. This was inspite of the facts that Precipes were circulated in the morning that the matter be taken up on priority on account of the age and ailments of the Petitioner as also on account of his long incarceration. |
| 25.04.2022 | Due to paucity of time, case was stood over to 26.04.2022. 26.04.2022 Due to paucity of time, case was stood over to 27.04.2022. |
| May 2021 | SLP (Crl.) No. 4440-4443 of 2022 was filed by the Petitioner against the repeated adjournments in Criminal Bail Application No. 1021 of 2022. |
| 31.05.2022 | SC directed expeditious disposal of Criminal Bail Application No. 1021 of 2022. |
| 09.06.2022 | An order was passed directing that the case not be listed before a Bench comprising Hon'ble Smt. Justice Bharati Dangre. |
| 01.07.2022 | The case was directed to be listed on hearing for 05.07.2022 in view of order dated 31.05.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the present matter. |
| 05.07.2022 | Case stood over to 11.07.2022. |
| 11.07.2022 | Arguments commenced and were heard for about 2-3 hours. Case stood over to 19.07.2022. |
| 19.07.2022 | Despite the fact that the case was heard at length and the Petitioner had concluded his arguments, case was listed before a new bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Chavan and was adjourned to 28.07.2022. |
| 28.07.2022 | Arguments were partly heard and the case was stood over to 29.07.2022. |
| 29.07.2022 | The Ld. ASG appearing for the ED submitted that he has a personal difficulty in the week commencing from 01.08.2022 and submitted that he would make further arguments on 10.08.2022. In light of the submission, the matter was directed to be listed on 10.08.2022. A prayer was made to release the Petitioner on interim bail but the same was not entertained. |
| 10.08.2022 | The matter was mentioned before the Hon'ble Court. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Ld. ASG submitted that the Ld. ASG is not keeping well and as such, the matter be adjourned for a week. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner / Applicant herein submitted that the matter is part heard and has been expedited by this Hon'ble Court's order dated 31.05.2022. The Hon'ble High Court considered the submissions and directed that the matter be listed on 19.08.2022 as part heard. |
| 18.08.2022 | A notification was published on the Hon'ble High Court's website stating that the single judge bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. K. Chavan will not be available for judicial work. Urgent matters were to be allowed before Hon'ble Smt. Justice Bharati Dangre. However, in the case of the Petitioner, the said judge had already recused on 09.06.2021. |
| 05.09.2022 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan before whom the matter was part-heard recu |
