Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. M. LAL, PALOK BASU, V. N. MEHROTRA, KUNDAN SINGH, G. S. N. TRIPATHI, JJ.
VINOD NARAIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 3643 Of 1992
Decided On : 02/01/1995
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The High Court, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot fix a specific time schedule for concluding bail proceedings. Directions to consider bail applications on the same day or to release an accused on interim bail if proceedings are not concluded on the same day are not permissible (!) .
While the Court can issue directions to expedite the consideration of bail applications, it cannot impose a mandatory time frame for disposal. The decision on bail must be made in accordance with law, considering the facts and circumstances of each case (!) .
The Court's role is to ensure that the rights of personal liberty are protected, but this does not extend to interfering with the judicial discretion vested in Magistrates or Courts of Sessions regarding bail. The exercise of such discretion must be left to the judicial authorities, respecting their constitutional and statutory powers (!) (!) .
The fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, which guarantee life, personal liberty, and the right to legal counsel, support the principle that bail applications should be decided expeditiously. However, these rights do not authorize the Court to set rigid deadlines or to direct the immediate consideration of bail on the day of surrender or arrest (!) (!) .
The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, especially those relating to arrest, investigation, and bail, are designed to balance individual liberty with societal interests. The law emphasizes that arrest and detention should be based on reasonable grounds, and the process involving bail should be conducted fairly and lawfully, respecting procedural safeguards (!) (!) .
The Court recognizes that in serious or heinous cases, considerations of public safety and the need for thorough investigation may justify delays in deciding bail applications. Therefore, the Court should not interfere to mandate same-day disposal of bail applications in all cases (!) .
The exercise of judicial discretion must be guided by the principles of fairness, lawfulness, and respect for constitutional rights. The Court should avoid issuing directives that could undermine the independence of judicial authorities or lead to arbitrary decisions (!) .
The Court emphasizes that procedural provisions and constitutional rights together form a framework that ensures justice is administered fairly without unnecessary infringement on personal liberty. Any directions for immediate bail consideration must be consistent with this framework and should not amount to judicial overreach (!) .
In conclusion, while the Court aims to uphold the constitutional rights of individuals and promote the speedy disposal of bail applications, it must do so within the confines of legal procedures and the statutory powers vested in judicial authorities. Fixed time schedules or mandatory directions for same-day bail decisions are not supported by law, and discretion must be exercised judiciously and independently by the courts concerned.
( 2 ) ACCORDINGLY, all the three writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that if the petitioners are arrested and brought before the competent Court or voluntarily surrender before the competent Court, and apply for bail, their bail applications will be decided by the competent Court as expediously as possible in accordance with law. 2a. B. M. Lal, J. Following question is to be answered by this Full Bench : "whether while rejecting the writ petition filed for quashing First Information Report, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Magistrate or the Court of Session as the case may be, to consider bail application of the accused/petitioner on the same day,andin the event of failure to conclude hearing of the bail application same day, to release the accused/petitioner on bail or on his personal bond same day, by granting interim bail pending disposal of the bail application ?2b. Divergent judicial views surfaced in this Court on this question. According to the view taken in Dr. Hidavat Hussain Khan v. State of U. P. and others (1992, Cri LJ 3534), a Division Bench of this Court held that this Court can issue direction to consider bail same day and in the event of failure to do so to release the accused on interim bail or on his personal bond same day till disposal of the bail application.
( 3 ) WHEREAS according to another view taken in Writ Petition No 919 of 1992 (Noor Mohammad v. State of U. P. and others), a Division Bench of this Court (Lucknow Bench) taking contrary view held that such directions fixing time limit to consider bail same day and in the event of failure to do so to release the accused on interim bail or personal bond cannot be issued.
( 4 ) BEFORE resolving the controversy in issue, it appears necessary to state about the genesis of this Full Bench.
( 5 ) VIDE Section 9 of U. P. Act No. 16 of 1976 State Legislature of Uttar Pradesh, repelled the operation of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) within territorial limits of Uttar Pradesh, with effect from 28-11-1975.
( 6 ) UPHOLDING the validity of U. P. Act No. 16 of 1976 referred to above, this Court ruled that aforesaid repeal does not violate the mandates enshrined under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
( 7 ) THIS view taken by this Court is recently affirmed by the apex Court vide paragraph 368 (15) of the judgement in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 holding that deletion of Section 438 of the Code in the State of U. P. vide Section 9 of U. P. Amendment Act, 1976, does not offend either Article 14 or Article 19 or Article 21 of the Constitution and the State Legislature is competent to delete that provision which is in respect of one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List (List-III) of the VIIth Schedule in the Constitution and such deletion is valid under Article 245 (2), 345 (2) of the Constitution.
( 8 ) THUS, aforesaid repeal of Section 438 of the Code resulted into opening of flood-gates for the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions to quash First Information Report aswell as to consider the bail application on the same day, so that petitioner (accused) may not be required to go inside the Jail and in this way a device is invented to get over
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
