April 20, 2024

Not Hearing Bail Pleas In Time Defeats The Administration Of Justice

By Linus Garg
First publised on 2021-06-17 11:11:09

About the Author

Linus tackles things head-on. He takes sides in his analysis and it fits excellently with our editorial policy. No 'maybe's' and 'allegedly' for him, only things in black and white.

View all posts by this Author

The Supreme Court heard a case where the regular bail application of an accused in the Punjab and Haryana High Court was not listed for hearing for over a year. The apex court was expressed shock at this denial and said that it amounted to infringement on the rights and liberty guaranteed to the accused. The court was of the view that timely hearing must be granted in such cases even during the pandemic. The accused had approached the apex court after an appeal for an early hearing was rejected by the High Court.

Saying that "normally, we do not interfere with an interim order passed by the high court but we are constrained to pass the present order as we are shocked to see that the bail application under Section 439 CrPC is not being listed for hearing for more than one year", the court directed the High Court registrar general to bring this order to the notice of the "competent authority to take remedial steps at the earliest." The Supreme Court hoped that the high court would take up the hearing at an early date.

The Supreme Court has always said that "bail, not jail" should be the thumb rule in most cases. But if courts do not take up the bail plea, this rule is not fulfilled. The accused has to remain in jail without a hearing and this definitely infringes his rights, as the Supreme Court has rightly pointed out. The apex court also said that "even during the pandemic, when all courts are making attempts to hear and decide all matters, the non-listing of such an application of bail defeats the administration of justice". The High Courts and the lower courts must pay heed.