JUDGMENT :

AJAY BHANOT, J.

1. Matter is taken up in the revised call. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press the bail application. Name of counsel for the applicant is shown in the cause list.

2. The order-sheet discloses that the counsel for the applicant has not appeared before this Court on successive dates of hearing in the past. Earlier the Court had called for the status report from the trial court as well as a report from the District Legal Services Authority.

3. Question arises whether the bail application should be dismissed for non prosecution or an amicus curiae should be appointed to represent the applicant and the matter be heard on merits.

4. Shri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel is appointed as amicus curiae to represent the applicant and assist the Court:

“Prison and the authorities conspire to rob each man of his dignity.” [Nelson Mandela in Long Walk to Freedom]

5. The right to bail is derived from statute but cannot be isolated from constitutional oversight.

6. Good authority has long entrenched the right of an accused to seek bail in the charter of fundamental rights assured by the Constitution of India. A more detailed discussion on constitutional law anchors of right of bail which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India can be seen in Ajeet Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. 2021 (1) ADJ 559, Junaid vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar vs. State of U.P. 2022 SCC Online All. 623 (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16961 of 2022).

7. Constitutional moorings of the right of bail also bring the right of fair hearing within its ambit.

8. Legal aid is an indispensable instrument to secure the pre-ambled objective of justice to all citizens. The national capacity to deliver equal justice is girded by the institutional ability to provide legal aid. Legal aid was exalted as a fundamental right by constitutional courts even before it was vested as a statutory right by the legislature under the Legal Services Authorities Act. [On the issue of legal aid and the scheme of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 see Anil Gaur (supra)].

9. Entitlement to legal services is provided for in Chapter IV of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 contains the criteria for giving legal services. Section 12(e) of the Act is germane to the controversy and is extracted below:

“Section 12 (e) - a person under circumstances of underserved want such as being a victim of a mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake or industrial disaster.”

10. The scope of the provision to provide free legal aid arose for consideration before this Court in Anil Gaur (supra) and was analysed thus:

“40. The eligibility criteria for giving legal services under Section 12(e) is broad based.

The breadth of the provision manifests the legislative intent to reach out to the last person at the bottom of the social heap. The section contemplates to give legal aid to persons who suffer from deprivation and exclusion caused by circumstances of want which are not of their making.

Under the provision persons facing circumstances of “undeserved want” become entitled for legal services. The phrase “undeserved want” is generic in nature. The word “such as” precedes the examples of “undeserved want” described in the section. The instances of “undeserved want” depicted in the provision are illustrative and not exhaustive, and are in the nature of externalities i.e. adverse circumstances over which a person has no control and which prevent recourse to justice.

The phrase “undeserved want” in the statute is not a fixed concept but an evolutionary exercise. The State Legal Services Authority is mandated to enquire whether the circumstances of a person being considered for legal aid fall within the sweep of “undeserved want.”

11. The Bar is the frontline sentinel of citizens’ rights and liberties. The courts are the last bastion of constitutio