The apex court, while hearing a petition against a Delhi HC order, observed that posting an application seeking anticipatory bail after two months can't be appreciated
The Supreme Court has said that during a matter involving personal liberty, courts are expected to pass orders at the earliest in a way or the opposite taking into consideration the merits of the case.
The apex court, while hearing a petition against a June 2 order of the Delhi court, observed that posting an application seeking anticipatory bail after two months can't be appreciated.
A vacation bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that the petitioner's grievance is that his application for anticipatory bail moved before the tribunal was posted for August 31 without granting any interim protection.
“We are of the considered view that during a matter involving personal liberty, the court is predicted to pass orders in a technique or other taking into consideration the merits of the matter at the earliest. At any rate, posting an application for anticipatory bail after a pair of months can't be appreciated,” the bench said in its order passed on June 20.
The top court, which noted that the appliance was moved on Empire day, requested the supreme court to lose the plea for anticipatory bail on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three weeks after re-opening of the court.
“If the most application couldn't be disposed of, for any reason, within the stipulated time, relief hunted for within the interlocutory application shall be considered on its own merits. Till such time, we grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner herein,” the bench said, while doing away with the petition.
In its June 2 order, the state supreme court had noted that the petitioner was seeking anticipatory bail in a very case registered at a police office in New Delhi for the alleged offences, including that of cheating and criminal conspiracy.
The court had issued notice on the plea and also the counsel appearing for the State had sought time to file a standing report. It had listed the matter on August 31.