2022 (2) TMI 1424 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - seeking ex-parte ad-interim bail/interim protection during the pendency of the main application - HELD THAT - It is 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. Not giving any specific date, particularly in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, is not a procedure which can be countenanced. This type of indefinite adjournment in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, that too after admitting it, is detrimental to the valuable right of a person - the learned Single Judge of the High Court is requested to dispose of the anticipatory bail application, pending adjudication before him, on its own merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the main application cannot be disposed of for any reason, the I.A. for interim relief be considered on its own merits. SLP disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Grant of anticipatory bail and interim protection during pendency of the main application.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with an application for ex-parte ad-interim bail/interim protection. The High Court admitted the anticipatory bail application but did not consider the petitioner's request for interim protection. The petitioner's grievance was that despite the co-accused being granted interim protection, his application was not listed for a hearing, potentially jeopardizing his legal rights. The Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court's approach, emphasizing the need for timely consideration of such applications to protect the valuable right of personal liberty. The Court stressed that indefinite adjournments in matters related to anticipatory bail are detrimental and directed the High Court to dispose of the application within two weeks, including the consideration of the interim relief application if the main application cannot be decided promptly.

The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of promptly addressing applications for anticipatory bail, especially concerning personal liberty. The Court emphasized that individuals should not be left in uncertainty and must receive a decision based on the merits of their case. The Court clarified that its direction to grant interim protection to the petitioner did not influence the final decision to be made by the High Court on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition and all pending interlocutory applications in light of its directions to the High Court, ensuring the expeditious consideration of the petitioner's anticipatory bail application and interim relief request.

This judgment underscores the procedural importance of timely consideration of applications for anticipatory bail and interim protection to safeguard individuals' rights, particularly concerning personal liberty. The Supreme Court's directive to the High Court to expedite the disposal of the petitioner's application within a specified timeframe serves to ensure the protection of legal rights without undue delay or uncertainty. The Court's decision to grant interim protection to the petitioner underscores the significance of balancing the interests of justice and individual rights pending a final determination on the merits of the case.