Deferments by courts lead to unnecessary burden on us, says SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has observed that deferments by lower courts cause unnecessary burden on it as it granted interim protection from arrest to a man whose anticipatory bail application was pending before the Allahabad High Court for the past seven months.
A bench of justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh granted the relief while noting that the Allahabad high court has not taken any view on the anticipatory bail application pending before it.
“We do believe that such deferments are only causing unnecessary burden on this Court rather than being dealt with at the appropriate level. The petitioner was never arrested during the investigation, however, he joined and cooperated with the investigation. In such a scenario, on the charge-sheet being filed, there is no need to arrest the petitioner and produce him before the Court in view of the legal position now enunciated by us,” the bench said.
The top court made the observation while hearing a plea by an accused seeking anticipatory bail in a criminal case.
In pursuance to cognisance taken by the special CBI Court Ghaziabad against the petitioner, summons were issued against him.
On receiving the summons, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail on January 16, 2021 which was declined on January 28.
The petitioner then filed an application for anticipatory bail before the high court on February 3, 2021.
The top court noted that the order-sheet shows that various proceedings have been held before the High Court, counter filed by the CBI, yet no view has been taken by the Court on the anticipatory bail application necessitating the petitioner to approach the highest court.
“We, thus, grant interim protection to the petitioner against arrest till the next date of hearing before the Trial Court and stay the operation of the Order dated August 3, 2021 directing process under Section 82 (Proclamation for person absconding) of the CRPC on the petitioner appearing before the Trial Court he will be dealt with in accordance with law,” the bench said.