- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- Supreme Court Criticises HC For Not...
Supreme Court Criticises HC For Not Deciding Bail Application On Merits & Disposing It Asking Accused To Approach Trial Court
Gyanvi Khanna
31 Jan 2024 2:45 PM GMT
In a bail application, where the Bombay High Court permitted the accused to file the same before the Trial Court instead of deciding it on merits, the Supreme Court observed that this approach amounts to non-exercise of jurisdiction. The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act was invoked against the petitioner/ accused in the present case. He sought for bail on merits. Additionally,...
In a bail application, where the Bombay High Court permitted the accused to file the same before the Trial Court instead of deciding it on merits, the Supreme Court observed that this approach amounts to non-exercise of jurisdiction.
The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act was invoked against the petitioner/ accused in the present case. He sought for bail on merits. Additionally, he pleaded his incarceration for seven and a half years as a ground. However, the High Court disposed off his bail application and ordered:
“...Be that as it may, as the applicant is in jail for about 7½ years, the applicant is permitted to file application for bail before the trial Court/Sessions Court. The application is disposed of.”
The Bench of Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta expressed dissatisfaction with the impugned order. The Bench noted that the petitioner has been in custody for over eight years. Thus, the High Court should have decided on the merits rather than asking the petitioner to take another round of litigation.
"When the petitioner applied for bail on merits and also on the ground that he had been incarcerated in jail for seven and a half years, the approach of the High Court in only permitting him to file an application for bail before the Trial Court/Sessions Court and not deciding the prayer for bail on merits, in our view, would amount to non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in it.
The petitioner had been languishing in prison for seven and a half years at the time on which the order was passed by the learned Single Judge and by now he has suffered custody of more than eight years, the High Court rather than asking the petitioner to take another round of litigation ought to have decided the matter on merits."
“In our view, the approach of the High Court was not in accordance with the sanctity has been given to personal liberty in catena of judgments.,” it added
In the aforenoted background, the Court restored the case with the High Court while setting aside the impugned order. Besides, it also requested the High Court to decide the matter on merits within two weeks.
Case Title: AMOL VITTHAL VAHILE vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA., Diary No.- 41564 – 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 78
