Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 133

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Rajanti Devi @ Rajanti Kumari – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 2578 of 2023 In SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 43646 of 2023
Decided On : 17-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): By Courts Motion
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshit Goel, Adv. Mr. Sujay Jain, Adv. Mr. K.V. Vibu Prasad, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail/Anticipatory bail applications – Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if provisions mandate otherwise, with exception being an intervening application – Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with exception of any intervening application.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438/439 – Bail/Anticipatory bail applications – Speedy disposal – Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if provisions mandate otherwise, with exception being an intervening application – Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with exception of any intervening application – Despite guidelines/directions having been issued by this Court from time to time, cases like present one, keep on happening and bail applications are not being heard expeditiously and if heard, are not being decided within stipulated time period – All courts shall scrupulously follow directions/ guidelines issued by this Court – High Courts given liberty to evolve a system/mechanism to check and verify at the end of each month, pendency of cases reserved for Judgments and Orders in each Court. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Court is very much alive about the magnitude of bail applications being filed and heard by Courts at all levels, we cannot be oblivious to the delay which takes place in disposal of Bail applications. This Court, time and again, has expressed great concern about the delay taking place in the disposal of the bail applications and has issued guidelines from time to time.
Findings of Court:
Cases like the present one, keep on happening and the bail applications are not being heard expeditiously and if heard, are not being decided within the stipulated time period.
Result : Miscellaneous Application disposed of with directions.

ORDER

1. The Miscellaneous Application has come up for consideration on the compliance report submitted by the Registry alongwith its office report.

2. On 28.11.2023, this Court had passed the following order:

Permission as sought for is granted.

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

However, during the course of hearing, it has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar) had heard the matter and reserved the same for orders on 07.04.2022 and had released the matter as per the order dated 04.04.2023 i.e. almost after one year. We are extremely surprised as to how the order on the petition seeking anticipatory bail could be kept pending for one year.

The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Patna may get the details of the matter and submit the report before 08.01.2024.

List the matter before this Bench on 08.01.2024 for compliance only.”

3. Pursuant to the said order, the Registrar General, Patna High Court has submitted the report, which has been perused by us.

4. As transpiring from the said Report, the matter with regard to the anticipatory bail was heard and reserved for the judgment by the concerned Judge vide order dated 07.04.2022, and subsequently, the same was released by him as per the Order dated 04.04.2023, i.e., almost after one year.

5. Though, we are very much alive about the magnitude of the bail applications being filed and heard by the Courts at all levels, we cannot be oblivious to the delay which takes place in the disposal of the Bail applications. This Court, time and again, has expressed great concern about the delay taking place in the disposal of the bail applications and has issued guidelines from time to time.

6. In R.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India, (1976) 3 SCC 574, this Court had issued directions for the expeditious delivery of judgments, which has been reiterated in Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 313. The guidelines in Anil Rai’s case reads as under: -

(ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/Readers of the various Benches in the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month.

(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months, the Chief Justice concerned shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information. Such communication be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.

(iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.

(v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document