"Would Like To Hear Respondent-Accused": SC Asks UP To File Rejoinder In Challenge Against Bail On The Ground Of Apprehension Of Death Due To COVID

In connection with the Allahabad High Court granting anticipatory bail to an alleged "conman" on the ground of apprehension of death due to COVID, the Supreme Court on Thursday stated that it may consider the question whether the anticipatory bail was rightly granted or not. Noting that the respondent-accused has filed a counter affidavit in the SLP by the state of UP, which prefers a challenge to the grant of anticipatory bail, the Court asked SG Tushar Mehta to file a rejoinder within 10 days. The Court expressed that it would like to hear the respondent-accused before taking the final call. The bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari was hearing the SLP by the state of UP against the May order of the Allahabad High Court where the Single Judge, after finding that the apprehension to life in the current scenario is a ground for grant of anticipatory bail to an accused, directed that the applicant before it (an accused under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 406 of the IPC), in case of his arrest, shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail for the limited period, till January 3, 2022. On Thursday, the SG, for the state of UP, reiterated that the Court set aside the anticipatory bail considering it was granted solely on the ground of COVID. "The only ground for the grant of anticipatory bail was the likelihood of death on account of the COVID pandemic. The High Court was not examining the merits. Your Lordships may consider setting aside the order on this ground alone. And let the High Court go into the merits", he urged. The SG advanced that Senior Advocate V. Giri, appointed Amicus Curiae in the matter, also agrees that apprehension of death due to the COVID pandemic cannot be the ground for anticipatory bail. The SG continued to submit that all COVID-related issues are being taken care of- "Last year, Court 1 of the Supreme Court had directed the constitution of committees in High Courts comprising of a judge, the Principal Secretary and the DG (Prisons) to determine who (among the prisoners) should be preferred (for release on interim bail or parole amid the pandemic). These committees have laid down guidelines and this should be left to them." Finally, he said that he wishes to make certain other suggestions regarding the instant issue 'dispassionately, regardless of the fact that he is appearing for the government' , and that he has certain reservations about the suggestions circulated by the Amicus also. When the bench observed that the SG should have already filed the response to the Amicus' suggestions, the SG said, "We had thought that the matter would be resolved by the aforesaid suggestion (of the court setting aside the anticipatory bail on the ground that it was granted solely on account of the COVID pandemic and letting the High Court decide the issue on merits.)" "The matter has pan-India ramifications", stressed the SG. "Of course, it has pan-India ramifications! But here, we are also concerned with how far the court can go in anticipatory bail matters. The law is settled to some extent...here, we may consider the question whether the anticipatory bail was rightly granted or not...You have made a challenge to the grant of anticipatory bail. The respondent has filed a detailed counter. Now you file your rejoinder", noted Justice Saran. To that observation, Justice Maheshwari added the following: "The other issue about prisons and how to deal with inmates is different. Here, the matter is anticipatory bail, it is confined predominantly and basically to anticipatory bail. From the beginning it has been made clear that the only and only reason which prevailed with the High Court was COVID as a health hazard and the fear of death...The respondent is also here. We would like to hear him also before taking the final call..." The bench then proceeded to dictate its order, granting 10 days to the state of UP to file its rejoinder and the response to the suggestions by the Amicus. SG Tushar Mehta on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court granting anticipatory bail to an alleged "conman" till January, 2022 on the ground of apprehension of death on account of the COVID pandemic. On Tuesday, the SG, appearing for the state of UP, prayed that the bench "set aside the anticipatory bail as it was granted only on the ground of COVID", urging that then the trial court can hear the issue on merits. The SG had then pleaded, "Here, the sole ground on which the anticipatory bail was granted was COVID. That a person may die because of COVID cannot be a ground for bail! This will otherwise apply across the state and pan-India! Whatever COVID-related issues were there, they have been taken up by the Supreme Court for consideration in its suo motu matter and the court has dealt with them. Your Lordships may set aside the anticipatory bail and then the trial court...

"Would Like To Hear Respondent-Accused": SC Asks UP To File Rejoinder In Challenge Against Bail On The Ground Of Apprehension Of Death Due To COVID

Mehal Jain

Arguably, Allahabad HC granted anticipatory bail on the sole ground of apprehension of death due to Covid-19.

Tags