Explore a case where the High Court criticized the delay in handling a bail application and highlighted the need for swift court proceedings. The court emphasized the impact of delays on investigation and prosecution interests, without delving into the responsibility for the situation. Find out how interim relief was granted to the appellant and how the court’s analysis focused on expediting the legal process.
Facts
- The High Court of Judicature at Calcutta granted interim protection to the appellant during the pendency of the bail application filed in August 2018.
- Investigation in connection with F.I.R. No. 27 of 2018, Daspur Police Station has progressed and is at an advanced stage of completion.
- The Sessions Court rejected the appellant’s bail application, following which the appellant filed a regular bail application before the High Court.
- The High Court granted interim relief to the appellant on 01.10.2018 and continued the protection until the current date.
Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings
Analysis
- The High Court kept the bail application pending for over a year and passed only interim orders until 23.11.2019.
- The main bail application filed by the appellant was disposed of in this order due to the peculiar fact situation.
- Displeasure was expressed towards the delay in dealing with the bail application filed in August 2018.
- The need for expeditious handling of such applications was emphasized as any delay can cause prejudice to the investigation and prosecution interests.
- Responsibility for the situation was not discussed, but the process followed was criticized.
- The appellant’s attempt for modification of the interim order on 01.10.2018 was unsuccessful, leading to the appeal to the current court.
- Even after expiry of six months, the accused is free to approach the concerned Court for bail.
- The main bail application pending before the High Court since August 2018 should be disposed of in line with the order.
- The conditions of the interim order(s) favoring the appellant since 01.10.2018 will be modified in the present case.
- The co-accused, whose bail application was rejected by the High Court, approached the Supreme Court with an SLP which was dismissed on 09.12.2019.
Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent
Decision
- The appellant shall furnish bail bond of Rs.25,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.
- The appellant shall not enter Paschim Medinipore District except for court proceedings with prior permission.
- The appellant must appear before the trial court on every hearing date, failing which bail will be cancelled.
- The appellant shall report to the Investigating Officer once a month and as required for investigation.
- The bail application in the High Court stands disposed of as per this order.
- The appellant must not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or travel outside India without permission.
- The appellant’s passport remains in the custody of CID, West Bengal.
- The appellant’s ordinary place of residence must be furnished to the Investigating Officer if changed.
- Interim bail was granted with specific conditions including weekly meetings with the investigating agency.
- The rejection of bail for a co-accused should not affect the appellant, who has abided by the conditions set by the High Court.
Also Read: Application for Stay in Civil Suit Rejected: Court’s Legal Analysis
Case Title: MOTAMARRI APPANNA VEERRAJU @ MAV RAJU Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2020 INSC 216)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000328-000331 / 2020
