“No Application Of Mind”: Delhi High Court Stays Sessions Court Order Halting Bail To Uday Bhanu Chib In AI Summit Protest Case

In granting interim relief to Uday Bhanu Chib, President of the Indian Youth Congress, the Delhi High Court on Monday stayed a Sessions Court order which had put on hold the bail granted to him by a Magistrate in connection with the shirtless protest at the recent India AI Impact Summit, observing that the impugned order reflected no application of mind.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee said prima facie it was “not satisfied” with the Sessions Court's order and emphasised that an order affecting personal liberty must disclose reasons.

“Some application of mind has to be there… If there is no application of mind, the order has to be stayed,” the Court remarked during the hearing.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Chib, argued that the Sessions Court had stayed the Magistrate's bail order ex parte.

“Order is passed ex parte and you keep the man in custody. This is shocking,” Luthra submitted, stressing the urgency: “This is something on liberty. I am very anxious.”

He contended that the Magistrate had declined police custody and granted bail at the remand stage itself, which was permissible under the Delhi High Court Rules. According to him, the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to interfere.

Luthra further argued that once a bail application is decided on merits, the order is not interlocutory and cannot be revised. He also alleged procedural lapses, saying he was not supplied the police custody application when produced before the Magistrate.

Terming the Sessions Court's decision “wholly bereft of reasoning”, Luthra read out the order in court.

On perusing the order, Justice Banerjee questioned the prosecution: “Where is reasoning in this order? You see page 1… turn over the page… where is reasoning or finding?”

The Bench underscored that when a court stays a bail order and affects liberty, it must show how the precedent relied upon applies to the facts.

“Please show me application of mind in this… We are all humans. We have to see from the perspective of liberty,” the judge observed.

Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General DP Singh argued that the investigation was ongoing and submitted that what was stayed was essentially a remand order, with bail being only consequential.

He contended that the order under challenge itself was illegal and sought to justify the Sessions Court's interference.

However, the Court remained unconvinced.

“Let's not go into all those. I am openly saying that I am not satisfied with your submissions. The order has to be stayed because there is no application of mind,” Justice Banerjee said.

Dictating the order in open court, the Bench noted that although the Sessions Court had detailed the State's submissions and cited the Supreme Court ruling in Parvinder Singh, there was no clear reasoning or reflection of its applicability while granting the stay.

Accordingly, the High Court issued notice and ordered: “Since there is no clear reflection of applicability… there shall be a stay on the order of the Sessions Court.”

The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 6, with the Court indicating it may allow parties to move an application seeking clarity on the remand aspect.