2023 (2) TMI 1191 - SCH - Indian Laws

Issuance of non-bailable warrants - charge sheet having been filed and during that period the appellants having cooperated but not having appeared before the Court personally but through a counsel - HELD THAT - It is noted that even the mandate subsequently incorporated in SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANR. 2021 (10) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT has been violated - it cannot be understood why despite these judgments having been circulated, some of the trial Courts are conducting and passing the orders in the teeth of these judgments. It is a matter of concern that these cases thus, keep on coming up to the apex Court unnecessarily. It also cannot be appreciated that the impugned order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the High Court calling upon the appellants, despite recognizing the fact that they are aged persons in their 70s and the alleged offences has a maximum punishment up to seven years, they have been called upon to surrender in the Court concerned. Thus, the appellants can always connect virtually for the proceedings looking to their age - the impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of issuing non-bailable warrants when the appellants cooperated through counsel.
2. Granting bail as a matter of course.
3. Compliance with previous judgments regarding bail.
4. High Court's order for aged appellants to surrender personally.
5. Virtual hearing arrangements during the Covid period.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether issuing non-bailable warrants when the appellants cooperated through counsel was justified. The Court noted that despite the appellants' cooperation and no further investigation being required, non-bailable warrants were issued, which raised concerns about the trial courts not following relevant judgments. The Court emphasized the need for trial courts to adhere to established legal principles and avoid unnecessary appeals to the apex court.

Regarding the grant of bail, the appellants argued that bail should have been granted as a matter of course, citing a previous judgment. The Court granted interim protection and highlighted the importance of following legal precedents in such matters. The State did not contest that no further investigation was needed, indicating that the bail should have been considered favorably.

The Court also discussed compliance with previous judgments related to bail, noting that the mandate in a specific case had been violated. The Court expressed disappointment in trial courts disregarding established legal principles and emphasized the need for consistency in judicial decisions to avoid unnecessary appeals.

The High Court's order for the aged appellants to surrender personally was deemed inappropriate by the Supreme Court. Considering the age of the appellants and the nature of the alleged offenses, the Court found the order calling for surrender to be unreasonable. The Court highlighted the importance of virtual hearings, especially during the Covid period, and expected arrangements to be made for such proceedings, even in district courts.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals and directing the parties to bear their own costs. The Court emphasized the importance of following legal precedents, ensuring virtual hearing arrangements, and avoiding unnecessary appeals to higher courts by adhering to established legal principles.