Sejal Chaturvedi –
In a special leave plea filed by Chunni Lal Gaba the Supreme Court was shocked to know that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had not listed bail applications for a year.
This plea was filled against the Assistant Director, Director of Enforcement, where the plaintiff challenged the rejection of hearing of his bail application.
This bail application had been pending since 28th February 2020
The Supreme Court virtually reprimanded the High Court for not listing bail applications for a year because it was “defeating the administration of justice”
A Division bench of the Supreme Court had ordered the High Court saying that at least half of the judges from then would have to sit on alternative days to accord hearings to “people in distress”, during the pandemic.
It was observed that the High court had a pendency of 6,84,490 cases, including 2,94,927 criminal matters involving life and liberty.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had gone into restricted mode following the Covid-out break last year in March
The Court had also cancelled the summer vacation itself and the subordinate courts for the year 2020, however this time the Court decided to go for a vacation despite the number of cases being heard had dipped to less than 1000 just before the break.
The Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian in the Special leave plea had expressed “shock” when it came to know that bail applications had not been listed at all in the Punjab and Haryana High Court for a year.
The Bench went on saying that, it usually didn’t not interfere with High Court interim orders, but was bound to pass the present order. “An accused has the right to hearing on his bail application and, a denial was an infringement of right and liberty assured to an accused,” the bench added.
The Bench in its rebuke added, “Even during the pandemic, when all courts are making attempts to hear and decide all matters, non-listing of such an application for bail defeats the administration of justice…. Non-listing of an application for regular bail, irrespective of the seriousness or lack thereof, of the offences attributed to the accused, impinges upon the liberty of the person in custody.”
Lastly the Bench said it was hopeful that the High court would be able to hear the bail applications on early dates to ensure the rights of accused are not taken away.