2023 (7) TMI 103 - SCH - Indian Laws

Non-grant of bail - petitioner has already completed 16 years 9 months and 18 days in actual custody - HELD THAT - In the facts of the present case, when we called for the details arising from non-uploading of order dated 04.08.2022 vide order dated 08.05.2023, the Bench chooses to release the matter on 11.05.2023 - We are of the view that thereafter the matter was required to be handed over to another Bench, more so, in the manner it has proceeded even thereafter, simply being assigned to the same Bench and thereafter being concluded on that date by the same Bench. The appellant has been in custody for 16 years 9 months and 18 days (as on 09.04.2023). Despite the opposition by the learned counsel for the complainant, there are little option but to release the appellant on interim bail in the present case in view of what we had recorded aforesaid subject to the final judgment. The Bench is requested now assigned to take up the matter as expeditiously as possible - appeal stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved: Delay in pronouncement of judgment, reassignment of matter to the same Bench

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of delay in pronouncing judgment in Criminal Appeal No.3832/2014, where the petitioner had completed a significant period in custody without the judgment being made available. The Court directed the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court to provide a report on the proceedings and the status of the judgment. Subsequently, it was revealed that the judgment had not been pronounced despite the lapse of time. The Court noted the unsatisfactory state of affairs and the subsequent reassignment of the matter to the same Bench. Citing the precedent in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, the Court emphasized the importance of timely pronouncement of judgments and the need for fresh arguments if there is a delay beyond a specified period.

Regarding the reassignment of the matter to the same Bench, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of the case and directed that the matter be assigned to another Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, in line with the principles laid down in the Anil Rai case. The Court highlighted a previous case, Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., where a similar delay in providing reasons led to the matter being reheard by a different Bench. Despite opposition from the complainant's counsel, the Court granted interim bail to the appellant due to the prolonged period of custody. The Court concluded by urging the newly assigned Bench to expedite the proceedings for a final judgment.