Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.
Rajesh Kumar – Petitioner
versus
State of Bihar – Opp. Party
Criminal Miscellaneous No.27467 of 2022
Decided on 3.11.2022
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail application – Procedure for on-line filing of cases to meet the situation, consequent upon onset of COVID-19 Pandemic and its adverse effects – For a considerable period of time, this Court had been taking up hearing of cases through on-line video conference because of COVID-19 restrictions, under exceptional circumstances – Physical functioning of Patna High Court subsequently resumed with effect from 04.01.2021 for four days in a week and for every Friday through on-line video conference – However, with onset of second wave of COVID-19 Pandemic and imposition of restrictions, court proceedings were resumed through on-line video conference – Thereafter, with restoration of normalcy, restrictions with regard to COVID-19 Pandemic were withdrawn and physical functioning of courts resumed with effect from 27.07.2021 with four days a week and through on-line video conference on every Friday – Subsequently, for physical functioning of High Court, a Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) has been laid down, effective from 21.02.2022 – Said SoP is still operative on paper but most of its clauses are not being followed now, understandably because of restoration of normalcy with waning of Pandemic situation. (Paras 3 to 6)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail application – On-line filing of cases – Right of public access to court proceedings is an essential requirement of an open court proceedings, which cannot be dispensed with except in exceptional circumstances and unless restriction on access to court room is imminent and necessary, in interest of justice or public interest – Court cannot have general discretion to exclude litigants or even public to watch proceedings unless otherwise provided in accordance with law in larger public interest or for any other genuine and valid purpose – Denial to a litigant of easy access to court proceedings creates opacity in court proceedings which is opposed to open court proceeding principle, in absence of any exceptional circumstance – In light of subsequent developments, Clause 25 of SoP might either have served its purpose while dealing with COVID-19 restrictions or it may not be presently serving any useful purpose, which aspect requires reconsideration at appropriate level – Live-streaming had remained limited to only few of Benches, whereas proceedings before rest of Benches remained completely inaccessible to litigants and general public – As on date, there is no live streaming of any court proceeding – Court proceedings of this High Court are completely shut for litigants and public and cannot be watched because of operation of Clause 25 of SoP – In present situation, it is wastage of judicial hours by adhering to Clause 1 of the SoP, issued nearly nine months back, to the effect that Court shall function for four days only in physical mode and one day in virtual mode – Based on appearance of Lawyers and staff present in court room, wearing of masks by anyone in Court premises is an exception and certainly not the practice – Decision of Hon’ble Chief Justice in matter of functioning of High Court is paramount and final – However, SoP, effective from 21.02.2022 issued by Hon’ble Chief Justice should either be followed strictly or SoP may be revisited in view of prevalent situation by Hon’ble Chief Justice, keeping in mind larger interest of justice delivery system. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14)
Result: Observations made. Matter referred to appropriate Bench.
ORDER (ORAL)
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—This application for grant of anticipatory bail was filed on 10.05.2022 and came to be registered on 25.05.2022. It has been listed today under the heading ‘For Orders’ with the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter dated 20.05.2022.
The office note reads thus:—
“Regarding Stamp Reporting Slip submitted for “Orders” before Hon’ble “S.J.” With “S.R.” defect Dated 20.05.2022 S.R. defect i.e.
(Any Correction in Petition be Corrected via S.A.)
1. Original copy of vak, fee receipt, notice and aff is required. 2. CC of FIR and Imp order is required. 3. 2nd and 3rd set of petition is required. 4. u/s at para 1 be verified and corrected from FIR.”
2. This is the third consecutive day when defective anticipatory bail applications only have been listed before this Bench with the office notes merely for obtaining orders for removal of defects. I take judicial notice of the fact that the only output in terms of disposal has been disposal of one anticipatory bail application [Cr. Misc. No. 32351 of 2022 (Vijay Ram vs. The State of Bihar] on 01.11.2022, which had become infructuous consequent upon petitioner’s arrest during its pendency. Further, there is no clue as to why this anticipatory bail application and many such applications are being placed for removal of the defects before the Bench, more than five months after the defects were pointed out by the Stamp Reporter in May, 2022 itself.
3. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that certain instructions were issued on the administrative side of the High Court prescribing the procedure for on-line filing of the cases to meet the situation, consequent upon the onset of COVID-19 Pandemic and its adverse effects.
4. In the present case, the application has been filed on-line. However, under the procedure in vogue in this Court, the petitioner is also required to file a hard-copy of the on-line application. Non-filing of hard copy of the application is one of the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter on 20.05.2022.
5. Further, for a considerable period of time, this Court had been taking up hearing of the cases through on-line video conference because of COVID-19 restrictions, apparently, under the exceptional circumstances. The physical functioning of the Patna High Court subsequently resumed with effect from 04.01.2021 for four days in a week and for every Friday through on-line video conference. However, with the onset of second wave of COVID-19 Pandemic and imposition of restrictions therefor, the court proceedings were resumed through on-line video conference. Thereafter, with restoration of normalcy, restrictions with regard to COVID-19 Pandemic were withdrawn and the physical functioning of the courts resumed with effect from 27.07.2021 with four days a week and through on-line video conference on every Friday. Subsequently, for physical functioning of the High Court, a Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) has been laid down and following instructions have been issued, effective from 21.02.2022:—
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
For Physical Functioning of the Courts
(w.e.f. 21st February, 2022)
General Instructions
1. The Courts shall function in the physical mode four days in a week, and one day in Virtual mode.
2. Gate No.1 shall be kept open exclusively for entry and exit of Hon’ble Judges. Gate No. 3 shall be used for vehicular and pedestrian entry and exit of Registry Officials, Court staff, lawyers and other permitted persons. Gate No. 4 shall remain open for pedestrians only.
3. Entry in the Court premises will be allowed through Gate No. 3 and exit shall be facilitated through Gate No. 3A near Court Officer’s residence.
4. The Vehicles will pass through the UVSS installed at Gate No. 3 and the pedestrians will pass through the cabin equipped with DFMD and baggage scanner cabin for their screening along with their belongings, if any.
5. Advocates, having e-pass for the day and self driving their vehicles,
Anticipatory bail application – On-line filing of cases – Right of public access to court proceedings is an essential requirement of an open court proceedings, which cannot be dispensed with except i....
(1) Once a person has chosen to approach High Court praying for grant of anticipatory bail, by operation of law, his opportunity to approach Sessions Court gets extinguished.(2) Right to life guarant....
An accused can approach the High Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in exceptional circumstances, especially if the Sessions Judge has ordered the forfeiture of bail and sur....
(1) Contempt of court – A litigant who attempts to pollute stream of justice or who touches pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.(2) Grant of b....
Anticipatory bail applications under S.438 must typically be filed in the Sessions Court first, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
The applicant, who concealed facts and filed a false affidavit, and made a mockery of the orders of the lower court by avoiding the process of summon, bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant, and the ....
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
