MP High Court Bar Association Writes To Chief Justice Raising Concern Over Handling Of Bail Matters, Procedural Difficulties
The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association has submitted a detailed representation to the Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, expressing serious concerns about various issues including handling of bail matters and procedural difficulties affecting access to justice. In their letter, the Bar Association stated that mandatory safeguards provided under BNSS, 2023, and earlier under Sections 41...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association has submitted a detailed representation to the Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, expressing serious concerns about various issues including handling of bail matters and procedural difficulties affecting access to justice.
In their letter, the Bar Association stated that mandatory safeguards provided under BNSS, 2023, and earlier under Sections 41 and 41A of CrPC are allegedly often not being "adequately examined" while deciding bail applications.
For context, Section 41 CrPC provides for circumstances in which a police officer may arrest without a warrant. Section 41A CrPC provides safeguards to prevent arbitrary arrests, including issuance of a mandatory notice to the accused to appear before arrest.
The letter stated that such protections are often not meaningfully considered even after the filing of a chargesheet, resulting in mechanical rejection of the bail pleas without proper judicial scrutiny.
The letter states, "It is further respectfully submitted that in several matters, even after filing of the charge-sheet/challan before the competent Court, orders are subsequently passed observing that "investigation is still continuing" and therefore bail is not being granted. Such factual inconsistencies in judicial orders are causing grave prejudice to litigants and are creating serious concern amongst members of the Bar as well as the litigant public".
The letter raised another important issue concerning "excessive negative disposals" of criminal matters, stating that the "disposal figures presently" reflected appear to indicate that a substantial number of criminal matters are being dismissed at the "threshold stage itself" often without adequate judicial consideration.
The letter emphaszied, "It is respectfully submitted that while judicial efficiency and disposal are undoubtedly important, statistical disposal figures should not overshadow the larger constitutional obligation of ensuring substantive and meaningful justice to litigants".
The letter also expressed concerns over the "extremely harsh approach" being adopted even in matters triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class courts, where offences are comparatively less serious, and charge sheets have already been filed. Per the letter, this has created anxiety and frustration among litigants as well as members of the legal fraternity.
The letter also pointed out that several matters before single judge benches pertaining to applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail are not being effectively effectively considered or listed through mention memos unless the appellant has "already undergone nearly half of the awarded sentence".
The letter noted, "Requiring an appellant to first suffer incarceration for nearly half of the sentence before meaningful consideration of interim relief may, in certain cases, result in irreversible prejudice and may not fully align with the larger principles of fairness, equity and protection of personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India".
In criminal revision matters, particularly involving enhancement or reduction of maintenance, the letter stated that revisions are frequently being disposed of at first hearing by granting liberty to approach subordinate courts again. This, per the letter, risks diluting the very purpose and efficacy of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.
The letter further raised issues relating to urgent listings and mentioning memos, claiming that physical mentioned memos are not being accepted in many courts, while online or ERP-mentioned memos often fail to secure effective listings.
The letter states, "In several urgent matters, mention requests are mechanically rejected without disclosure of any reason, thereby causing serious hardship even in matters involving personal liberty and urgent interim protection".
The letter noted that the advocates had hoped that these issues were temporary, but these have persisted over a considerable period of time, causing dissatisfaction among practising advocates.
The Association has raised these issues before the Chief Justice for appropriate judicial intervention. The letter stated, "Therefore, through this humble representation, it is earnestly requested that Your Lordship may kindly take cognizance of the aforesaid issues and consider taking appropriate corrective and administrative measures so that litigants are not deprived of effective justice and the confidence of the Bar and litigant public in the justice delivery system remains strengthened".