Supreme Court frowns upon Allahabad High Court for reassigning case to same bench that failed to deliver verdict 6 months after reserving it

The Supreme Court recently frowned upon the practice of listing a matter before the same bench that failed to pronounce a verdict in the case within six months of reserving it. [Umesh Rai @ Gora Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh]..A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah deprecated the action taken by the Allahabad High Court to list a case for fresh hearing before a bench, which had earlier failed to deliver its judgment in the said case within a period of six months after reserving its verdict."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...We thus, cannot appreciate the reassigning of the matter to the same Bench and we direct that the matter be assigned by Hon’ble Chief Justice to another Bench," the order stated..The Court was hearing an appeal moved by a convict seeking bail on the ground that the High Court had not yet pronounced its judgment even after reserving the same in August 2022.The appellant pointed out that he had already undergone actual custody of 16 years 9 months and 18 days, and that his appeal has been pending before the High Court since 2014..On the last date of hearing, the Supreme Court sought a report from the High Court regarding the status of the judgment reserved. The Registrar General of the High Court reported that the judgment has not been reserved and that the case has been listed before the same bench on May 12.On May 12 itself, the arguments were completed and the bench directed the parties to file written submissions by May 15. It then placed the matter for delivery of judgment on May 19, the report stated..The appellant relied upon the decision in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001), wherein it was held that if a judgment is not pronounced within a period of six months, it should be placed before another bench for fresh arguments.Considering the same, the Court expressed displeasure at the fact that even after being asked to reassign the case, the same was listed before the same bench.Since the case now has to be freshly heard by another bench, there exists no question of pronouncement of judgment by the earlier bench on May 19, 2023, the Court said. .Further, because the appellant had already undergone actual custody of over 16 years and 9 months, the Court granted him bail subject to the final judgment."We may notice that 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, we have 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 Court said..While disposing of the appeal, the Court requested the new bench that will be assigned this case to take it up as expeditiously as possible."Reluctant as we are to observe, we would request the Bench now assigned to take up the matter as expeditiously as possible," the Court observed..[Read Order]