Maneesh Pathak vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 398

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 398

AJAY BHANOT
Maneesh Pathak – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Amaresh Yadava, Jitendra Singh.

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 Omar Zamin, 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 r