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 IN [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."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.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."
