Tanisha Rana
Published on: September 19, 2022 at 21:39 IST
In the case of Mahboob Ali vs. State of Uttarakhand, the Uttarakhand High Court recently expressed its displeasure with the State’s “Chalta Hai” approach in handling a bail case and noted that the State was one of the main obstacles to the swift resolution of bail proceedings.
After concluding that the State was not assisting in the resolution of a bail case despite the judge’s repeated concerns, Justice Ravindra Maithani issued the statement.
“The state of affairs exhibited by the State in the instant case reflects nothing but, “chalta hai attitude”, which is dangerous to the rule of law,” the Court said.
The single judge said that one of the major obstacles to a swift resolution of bail proceedings is the State.
The applicant had applied for bail after being accused of extortion, malicious insult, willingly inflicting harm, and criminal intimidation. It was claimed that the applicant had filed a false molestation case against the informant in order to demand money.
The court discovered some crucial details missing from the police’s counter-affidavit after reviewing it, thus another affidavit including the answers to the court’s particular inquiries was required.
But after many adjournments, this affidavit was not submitted. The State was represented by different attorneys on each occasion, which the Court also noted.
“After 4 dates, the State failed to file short counter affidavit. There is no response as to why they failed,” the Court noted.
The single judge emphasised that the Supreme Court had directed the swift resolution of bail issues in a number of cases.
The High Court questioned how this could be accomplished without material from the State to support the Court, though.
Therefore, Justice Maithani ordered that the concerned Senior Superintendent Police (SSP) and the Principal Secretary Law Cum Legal Remembrancer receive this order.
The SSP was instructed to personally submit an affidavit and show up in court the next date to respond to inquiries.
Prior to the following date, the Principal Secretary was instructed to provide a report outlining the steps taken to stop such behaviour in the future.
“The Court expects that it should not be a mere formality. If somebody has failed, strict actions, as per law, should be taken,” it was observed.
The matter was then scheduled for another hearing on September 27, 2022, as a result.