New Delhi: The Supreme Court, earlier this week, said that it believed that inordinate delay in passing an order pertaining to the liberty of a citizen is not in tune with the constitutional mandate of courts.
The apex court’s three-judge bench of Justices B.R. Gavi, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, on Thursday, April 27, made absolute its interim protection from arrest, granted to an accused on March 24, for an alleged offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
In the case, Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal & ANR vs The State of Maharashtra & ANR, the bench had earlier granted interim protection from arrest to the petitioner considering three factors.
These were:
(i) That it was a cross case arising out of civil dispute;
(ii) Prima facie, there was no material to show that the provisions of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were invoked; and
(iii) That the incident was alleged to have taken place on February 17, 2022, and the FIR was lodged on February 23, 2022, and as such there was a delay of six days in lodging the FIR.
The bench prima facie found that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation would not be necessary for the offences alleged with.
The bench also noted that the single judge of the Bombay high court’s Aurangabad bench, comprising Justice Kishore C. Sant, had on March 1, rejected the appellant’s bail application.
The bench, citing the apex court’s previous ruling in Niranjan Singh and Another v Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others (1980), held that detailed elaboration of evidence has to be avoided at the stage of grant or rejection of bail or anticipatory bail.
“We don’t appreciate such a lengthy elaboration of evidence at this stage,” the bench added in its order on Thursday.
The bench also mentioned that though the order was reserved on January 25, the single judge of the high court pronounced the order on March 1, i.e., after a period of one month and one week.
The bench observed in Paragraph 8 of the order thus:
“It is always said that in the matters pertaining to liberty of citizens, the Court should act promptly. In our view, such an inordinate delay in passing an order pertaining to liberty of a citizen is not in tune with the constitutional mandate”.
Therefore, the bench reasoned that it was inclined to allow the petition of the appellant for making the interim bail absolute. The bench, however, added that the petitioner should cooperate with the investigation and report to the Investigation Officer, as and when directed.
Also read: Despite SC Raps, Lower Courts Continue to Set Bail Pre-Conditions Amounting to Crores
Background
In this case, the complainant alleged that the two appellants, whose labourers were excavating his field, abused him in the name of caste.
After the crime was registered, the appellants approached the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, by filing the application for pre-arrest bail. The Special Judge under the SC & ST (POA), Act, Aurangabad, on February 28, 2022, rejected the application. The judge observed that a clear case was made out against the accused by considering Section 18 of the Act and various judgments of the apex court and the Bombay high court.
In his judgment, Justice Sant observed that cases of atrocities are required to be taken seriously. Citing the Supreme Court’s verdict in Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs Union of India and others (2020), he held that when prima facie case is made out under the Act, the bar under Section 18 would clearly come into play and no application for anticipatory bail could be entertained.
Justice Sant also noted that the offence had allegedly happened in the presence of others, and not in closed premises, thus inviting the application of the rigours of the law. Regarding the claim of previous complaints between the parties, Justice Sant noted that the alleged complaint by the appellants was made only on the date on which the FIR came to be registered. Thus he did not accept the contention of the appellants that it was the informant who was not ready to complete the earlier transaction which led to a dispute between them.