IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – To deny bail to a person for fault of Counsel who does not argue, accused having nothing to gain, would be a parity of justice.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has been in custody for around 8 years and the appeal has not been decided yet. The appellant is granted bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Apart from any other conditions to be imposed by the trial Court, the appellant will report to the local police station on the first Monday of every month in the forenoon.

3. In order to find a holistic solution to the problem of hearing of appeal and grant of bail in criminal matters in the Allahabad High Court, in terms of our Order dated 05.10.2021, we were not wanting to detain the matters qua bail. Thus, we directed the bail matters to be placed before the High Court and the Registry to register a Suo moto proceeding and place them before the Court on 16.11.2021. We note with some surprise and consternation that despite the said Order, as per the office report, while the suo moto proceedings have been so registered, they were not listed on 16.11.2021 nor on any date thereafter.

4. We have a report of the High Court of Allahabad which seeks to suggest that the 18 matters remitted to the High Court for consideration of bail were listed on 15.11.2021, 16.11.2021 and 17.11.2021 and that appearances were not put in on behalf of the appellants despite the matters being listed in the roster bench and none appeared to press the matters for being taken up on board. The affidavit is dated 15.11.2021 and learned counsel for the High Court seeks to file an updated report as he states that some matters have been dealt with while in other matters though listed on numerous occasions, none appeared for the accused.

5. We have also emphasized to learned counsel for the State that in reference to our observation on the last date about consideration of cases under the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1938, there should be better coordination between the States and the Registry of the High Court. Thus, for anybody who has completed 14 years of sentence, the case has to be put before the Board to be examined as per the norms. It is not appropriate that those cases lie in the High Court with sentences much beyond 14 years being served without even being examined on the question of their release under the Policy.

6. We thus call upon the High Court and the State Government to prepare a list of such of the cases where the accused have already served out 14 years of sentence and for one reason or the other, the appeal has not been heard (even if it be fault of the lawyer) and those cases should be put before the Board. It is also possible that in some of these cases, once the accused is released, the person may not at all be interested in prosecuting the appeal.

7. There may be cases where for whatever reason the advocate may not be present as has been set out in the report of the High Court but if they have already completed 14 years of actual sentence, the State itself should take an appropriate stand and the learned Judge can himself pass appropriate orders to at least examine those cases for release and the absence of the advocate cannot come in the way in such a scenario.

8. We have put to learned AAG and the learned counsel for the High Court that a list should be prepared of all cases where the person has served out a sentence of 14 years, is not a repeat offender, and in any case if in these cases at one go bail can be granted and cases remitted for examination under the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1938. In all these cases, there is a high possibility that if these people are released, they may not be even interested in prosecuting their appeals.

9. The second category of cases can be one where the person has served out more than 10 years of sentence. In these cases also at one go bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating circumstances against him.

10. We are quite hopeful that the High Court will adopt the aforesaid practice and thus prevent the Supreme Court to be troubled with su