LI Network
Published on: February 1, 2024 at 11:20 IST
The Supreme Court has criticized the Bombay High Court’s handling of a bail application, where the accused was redirected to file the application before the Trial Court instead of a decision on merits.
The apex Court deemed this approach as a failure to exercise jurisdiction.
The accused in this case faced charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act and sought bail, citing both merits and seven and a half years of incarceration. However, the High Court disposed of the bail application, instructing the accused as follows:
“Be that as it may, as the applicant is in jail for about 7½ years, the applicant is permitted to file an application for bail before the trial Court/Sessions Court. The application is disposed of.”
The Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, expressed dissatisfaction with this order. Noting that the petitioner had spent over eight years in custody, the Supreme Court opined that the High Court should have decided the matter on merits instead of prompting the petitioner to initiate another round of litigation.
When the petitioner applied for bail on merits and also on the ground that he had been incarcerated in jail for seven and a half years, the approach of the High Court in only permitting him to file an application for bail before the Trial Court/Sessions Court and not deciding the prayer for bail on merits, in our view, would amount to non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in it.
The petitioner had been languishing in prison for seven and a half years at the time on which the order was passed by the learned Single Judge, and by now he has suffered custody of more than eight years.
The High Court, rather than asking the petitioner to take another round of litigation, ought to have decided the matter on merits, stated the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and restored the case to the High Court, urging a prompt decision on merits within two weeks.