An Orissa High Court order was the topic of the petition that the person had filed with the Supreme Court
(File Photo)
While listening to a plea submitted by a person going through prosecution for suspected crimes below the NDPS Act, 1985, the SC acknowledged that such orders positioned an additional burden on the petitioner
The Supreme Court has mentioned when a court docket concludes that an accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial, then granting the aid solely for a restricted length is “illegal” and such orders violate the best to liberty. The apex court docket, which was listening to a plea filed by a person going through prosecution for alleged offences below the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, mentioned such orders put an extra burden on the litigant as he was compelled to file a recent bail software for extension of the aid granted earlier.
“When a court concludes that the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial, granting bail only for a limited duration is illegal. Such orders violate the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal mentioned in its order handed on November 29. The man had filed the petition difficult an order of the Orissa High Court.
The high court docket famous that perusal of the excessive court docket order confirmed the decide had concluded that the appellant was entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, he was granted interim bail for 45 days, the bench mentioned.
“In short, the high court was of the view that prolonged incarceration with no prospect of the trial coming to an end makes a case for the grant of bail,” it added. After recording the tentative findings, the excessive court docket had granted him bail solely for 45 days, describing it as interim bail, the bench mentioned.
“But after granting the interim bail, as mentioned in the last paragraph of the impugned order, the judge has finally disposed of the bail application. If an order granting interim bail was to be passed, the bail application should have been kept pending,” it mentioned. The bench additional mentioned, “We may note here that this is the fifth or sixth order which we came across from the same high court where, after recording a finding that an accused was entitled to be enlarged on bail, the high court has chosen to grant either interim bail or bail for a short duration.” While permitting the attraction, the bench modified the excessive court docket order and directed that the appellant shall be enlarged on bail till the ultimate disposal of the case.
