Read Time: 06 minutes

The Supreme Court on Monday remarked that not giving any specific date, particularly in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, is not a procedure that can be countenanced.

A Chief Justice of India NV Ramana led bench opined that an indefinite adjournment in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, that too after admitting it, is detrimental to the valuable right of a person.

Before the Chhattisgarh High Court, one Rajesh Seth had filed an application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail. The same was accompanied with an Interlocutory application seeking ex-parte ad-interim bail/interim protection during the pendency of the main application.

When the matter was listed before the high court on January 17, 2022, court merely admitted the anticipatory bail application with a further direction to list it in due course. Court did not consider the Interlocutory application although co-accused in the same case had been granted the interim protection from arrest.

Thereafter, in appeal against high court's order, the counsel for the petitioner argued before the Apex Court that if his client is arrested during the pendency of anticipatory bail application, it would become infructuous and his legal right will be defeated. He, therefore, urged the top court to ensure that the matter is heard by the High Court and the valuable right of the petitioner be protected.

After perusing the case, CJI Ramana, along with Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli was compelled to disapprove the course adopted by the High Court as a matter of procedure.

"When an application for anticipatory bail was listed before the learned Single Judge, which was also accompanied by an application for ad-interim relief, the learned Judge should have decided the same one way or the other, so far as the ad-interim prayer or should have taken up for consideration after giving some reasonable time to the State. Even if admitted, the learned Judge should have listed the same for final disposal on a specific date, keeping in view the nature of relief sought in the matter....", the bench said.

Further, without adverting to the merits involved in the case, the court found it necessary "to emphasize that when a person is before the Court and that too in a matter involving personal liberty, least what is expected is for such a person to be given the result one way or the other, based on the merit of his case and not push him to a position of uncertainty or be condemned without being heard, when it matters."

Thus while granting interim protection to the petitioner, the court requested the Single Judge of the High Court to dispose of the anticipatory bail application preferably within a period of two weeks.

"If the main application cannot be disposed of for any reason, the I.A. for interim relief be considered on its own merits", further ordered the Court.

Case Title: Rajesh Seth v. State of Chhattisgarh