Stopping issuance of rule nisi and adjourning bail petitions has led to disposal of 3,000 bail cases in a month: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court on Monday said that stopping the practice of issuing 'Rule Nisi' and adjourning bail matters for weeks has yielded good results as the High Court has disposed of at least 3,000 bail applications within a month [Bhavesh Baldevbhai Desai/Rabari vs State of Gujarat]..A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee made the observation while hearing a special criminal application challenging certain practices followed by the High Court while dealing with bail matters."We have got very good result after stopping this practice. Approximately 3,000 bail applications have been disposed of within a month. As of now only 1,000 bail applications are pending with the High Court," Chief Justice Agarwal highlighted.The plea filed by one Bhavesh Desai said that the practices followed by the High Court while dealing with bail matters, was contributing to the delay in disposing of bail applications..During the hearing, petitioner's counsel Senior Advocate Asim Pandya informed the bench that clause 25a of the Criminal Manual was amended in May 2022, mandating courts to dispose of a bail application or an anticipatory bail application within a period of three to seven days from the first date of hearing."This provision does not apply only on lower courts but also on the High Court," Pandya submitted.To this, CJ Agarwal pointed out that expeditious disposal of cases is possible only if there is co-operation from all the stake holders. "Everybody must co-operate," the Chief Justice remarked while asking Pandya whether he seeks adjournments or not.Pandya responded in the negative saying, "Not in bail matters." Chief Justice Agarwal, then said, "No, the practice is once the bench expresses an opinion, you (advocates) take a chance, you avoid the court sometimes etc. For early decision of matter, co-operation of the Bar is needed. So Bar and Bench can only work together to decide the matter expeditiously. If you won't co-operate then the provision wouldn't apply."We aren't issuing any mandamus to decide such matters within the time frame as per the manual, the bench made it clear..Further, Pandya emphasised that despite the clear instructions in the Arnesh Kumar guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, the same is being violated as police do not conduct a preliminary enquiry and even the Magistrate or trial courts deny bail to persons who are arrested in offences which have up to 7 years jail term."There are several instances wherein despite the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, sessions court doesn't release individuals. The guidelines mandate the police to exercise its powers and even the Magistrate has to scrutinise the material and record reasons why the arrest is necessitated otherwise, even the Magistrate is liable departmentally," Pandya pointed out, adding that none of these powers are being exercised and such matters are coming up till the High Court in bail jurisdiction. In response, the bench said that the guidelines doesn't say that there shouldn't be any arrests at all. "There is no such law that there shouldn't be any arrest at all. No-arrest is not the rule. Once no-arrest isn't the rule the court has to apply it's mind in individual facts and see how the arrest was made. If it thinks the person was illegally arrested then it can ask for response from the authorities. I don't think we can read the rule as per your interpretation," Chief Justice Agarwal observed.Pandya further highlighted the practice of the High Court issuing notice to the public prosecutors even in bailable offences and adjourning the matters.The bench said the practice is no more being followed as a new practice of mandatorily issuing advance notice to the public prosecutor has been introduced. "Now there is no question of notices being issued mechanically. Now we have this practice of advance notice to prosecutor. If there is no advance notice, the matter won't be registered at all," the bench clarified..The Court further refused to entertain the argument that an order be issued to the bail applicants (accused) to furnish the affidavits (in the High Court) of the investigating officer (IO), who files it before the lower courts. The bench opined that it cannot compel an accused to file material against himself. While posting the matter for orders, the bench made it clear that it will ask advocates not to take unnecessary adjournments and courts not to entertain such adjournment requests.