Brief Facts
- The High Court had rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the same, the accused-appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the Courts should peruse the evidence in detail while deciding bail applications?
- Whether reserving the orders in bail application is contradictory to fundamental rights?
Held
- The Supreme Court allowed the Petition by making absolute an ad interim protection granted to the accused after noting that the case against the appellant-accused was (i) a cross case arising out of civil dispute, (ii) prima facie there was no material to show that the provisions of SC/ST Act were invoked, and (iii) there was a delay of six days in lodging the FIR.
- The Supreme Court observed that Court has consistently right from the case of Niranjan Singh and Another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, (1980) 2 SCC 559, held that detailed elaboration of evidence has to be avoided at the stage of grant/rejection of bail/anticipatory bail. Further, the court stated that such a lengthy elaboration of evidence should not be appreciated at this stage.
- Another factor that needs to be noted is that though the order was reserved on 25.01.2023, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has pronounced the order on 01.03.2023 i.e. after a period of one month and one week.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court further stated that it is always said that in the matters pertaining to liberty of citizens, the Court should act promptly. In our view, such an inordinate delay in passing an order pertaining to liberty of a citizen is not in tune with the constitutional mandate.
Relevant Para No.
- 2, 6, 7, 8