LI Network
Published on: December 05, 2023 at 13:10 IST
The Gujarat High Court announced on Monday that the discontinuation of the practice of issuing ‘Rule Nisi’ and postponing bail matters for weeks has resulted in the swift resolution of 3,000 bail applications within a month.
Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, who had previously expressed her commitment to eliminating the issuance of ‘rule nisi’ and the adjournment of bail applications.
Justice Aniruddha Mayee, presided over the division bench that shared this information during the hearing of a special criminal application challenging certain practices in dealing with bail matters.
Chief Justice Agarwal highlighted the positive outcomes, stating, “We have achieved very good results after stopping this practice. Approximately 3,000 bail applications have been disposed of within a month. Currently, only 1,000 bail applications remain pending with the High Court.”
The court’s action came in response to a plea filed by Bhavesh Desai, asserting that certain practices in the High Court were causing delays in processing bail applications.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Asim Pandya, representing the petitioner, pointed out an amendment to clause 25a of the Criminal Manual in May 2022, mandating the disposal of bail applications within three to seven days from the first date of hearing, applicable not only to lower courts but also to the High Court.
Chief Justice Agarwal emphasized that the cooperation of all stakeholders is essential for the expedited disposal of cases. She underscored the need for cooperation between the Bar and the Bench, stating, “If you won’t cooperate, then the provision wouldn’t apply.”
The court clarified that it was not issuing a mandamus to decide matters within a specific timeframe as per the manual. Pandya further raised concerns about the violation of Supreme Court guidelines, such as the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, which were intended to prevent arbitrary arrests.
The court responded by noting that the guidelines do not prohibit arrests altogether and emphasized the importance of examining each case individually.
Pandya also brought attention to the High Court’s previous practice of issuing notices to public prosecutors even in bailable offences.
The court clarified that this practice has been replaced with a new mandatory system of advance notice to prosecutors, ensuring that notices are not issued mechanically.
The court refused to entertain an argument suggesting an order compelling bail applicants to furnish affidavits of the investigating officer, emphasizing that it cannot compel an accused to provide material against themselves.
In concluding the proceedings, the bench expressed its intent to discourage unnecessary adjournments and urged both advocates and courts not to entertain such requests.
