[Anticipatory Bail] Granting indefinite adjournment detrimental to valuable right of person: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that indefinite adjournments in anticipatory bail matters, that too after admitting it, is detrimental to the valuable right of a person [Rajesh Seth v. State of Chattisgarh]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli expressed its disapproval at the course adopted by the Chhattisgarh High Court in a case before it."We find it necessary to emphasize that when a person is before the Court and that too in a matter involving personal liberty, least what is expected is for such a person to be given the result one way or the other, based on the merit of his case and not push him to a position of uncertainty or be condemned without being heard, when it matters," the Court said. The Bench thus granted protection to the appellant till pendency of the bail hearing or prayer for interim relief, observing:"We are of the considered view that 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 Court said..Before the High Court, the appellant had moved an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail, accompanied by an interim application (IA) seeking ex-parte ad-interim bail/interim protection. On January 17, the High Court had directed the same to be listed for final hearing in due course.It was the grievance of the appellant that till date, the matter has not been listed for hearing and no order has been passed about any interim protection during the pendency of the anticipatory bail application.The appellant pointed out that the High Court had merely admitted the anticipatory bail application filed by him with a further direction to list in due course, but did not consider the IA seeking interim protection during pendency of the bail application, although the co-accused in the same case had already been granted interim protection from arrest by the Court..Expressing displeasure to the procedure adopted by the High Court, the apex court Bench observed that:"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."The Bench said that the High Court not giving any specific date of listing, particularly in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, is not a procedure which can be countenanced.The Supreme Court, therefore, asked the High Court to dispose of the anticipatory bail application expeditiously and preferably within a period of two weeks."If the main application cannot be disposed of for any reason, the I.A. for interim relief be considered on its own merits. Till such time, we grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner herein," the top court noted in its order..Advocates Sundeep Srivastava, Paran Kumar, Shubham Sharma, Braj Kishore Mishra and Abhishek Yadav appeared on behalf of the appellants..[Read Order]