In a recent decision in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51,
this Court has directed to dispose of the bail applications
in two weeks. The said direction read as under: -
“100.11. Bail applications ought to be disposed
of within a period of two weeks except if the
provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being
an intervening application. Applications for
anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within
a period of six weeks with the exception of any
intervening application.” {Para 7}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2578 OF 2023
IN
SLP (CRIMINAL) DIARY NO. 43646 OF 2023
RAJANTI DEVI @ RAJANTI KUMARI Vs THE UNION OF INDIA
1. The Miscellaneous Application has come up for consideration
on the compliance report submitted by the Registry alongwith
its office report.
2. On 28.11.2023, this Court had passed the following order:
“After arguing for sometime and on expressing our
reservation in entertaining the petition, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission
to withdraw the present petition.
Permission as sought for is granted.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.
However, during the course of hearing, it has
been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the High Court (Coram: Hon’ble
Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar) had heard the matter and
reserved the same for orders on 07.04.2022 and had
released the matter as per the order dated 04.04.2023
i.e. almost after one year. We are extremely
surprised as to how the order on the petition seeking
anticipatory bail could be kept pending for one year.
The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature
at Patna may get the details of the matter and submit
the report before 08.01.2024.
List the matter before this Bench on 08.01.2024
for compliance only.”
3. Pursuant to the said order, the Registrar General, Patna High
Court has submitted the report, which has been perused by us.
4. As transpiring from the said Report, the matter with regard
to the anticipatory bail was heard and reserved for the
judgment by the concerned Judge vide order dated 07.04.2022,
and subsequently, the same was released by him as per the
Order dated 04.04.2023, i.e., almost after one year.
5. Though, we are very much alive about the magnitude of the
bail applications being filed and heard by the Courts at all
levels, we cannot be oblivious to the delay which takes place
in the disposal of the Bail applications. This Court, time
and again, has expressed great concern about the delay taking
place in the disposal of the bail applications and has issued
guidelines from time to time.
6. In R.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India, (1976) 3 SCC 574, this
Court had issued directions for the expeditious delivery of
judgments, which has been reiterated in Anil Rai Vs. State
of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 313. The guidelines in Anil Rai’s case
reads as under: -
“(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue
appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case
where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later,
a column be added in the judgment where, on the first
page, after the cause-title, date of reserving the
judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately
mentioned by the Court Officer concerned.
(ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their
administrative side, should direct the Court
Officers/Readers of the various Benches in the High
Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the
matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced
within the period of that month.
(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the
arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a
period of two months, the Chief Justice concerned shall
draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the
pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the
desirability of circulating the statement of such cases
in which the judgments have not been pronounced within
a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of
the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for
their information. Such communication be conveyed as
confidential and in a sealed cover.
(iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three
months from the date of reserving it, any of the
parties in the case is permitted to file an application
in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment.
Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed
before the Bench concerned within two days excluding
the intervening holidays.
(v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not
pronounced within a period of six months, any of the
parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an
application before the Chief Justice of the High Court
with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it
over to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is open
to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to
pass any other order as he deems fit in the
circumstances.”
7. In a recent decision in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51,
this Court has directed to dispose of the bail applications
in two weeks. The said direction read as under: -
“100.11. Bail applications ought to be disposed
of within a period of two weeks except if the
provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being
an intervening application. Applications for
anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within
a period of six weeks with the exception of any
intervening application.”
8. Despite the aforestated guidelines/directions having been
issued by this Court from time to time, it appears that the
cases like the present one, keep on happening and the bail
applications are not being heard expeditiously and if heard,
are not being decided within the stipulated time period.
9. In view of the above, it is directed that all the courts
shall scrupulously follow the directions/ guidelines issued
by this Court in the aforestated decisions.
10. We leave it to the High Courts to evolve a system/mechanism
to check and verify at the end of each month, the pendency of
cases reserved for judgments and orders in each Court.
11. Subject to the said directions, the present proceedings are
closed.
12. The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.
13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
14. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to all
the High Courts.
………………………………………………………J
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
…………………………………………………………J
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI;
17TH JANUARY, 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment