The Supreme Court in the case Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal vs State of Maharashtra observed wherein an inordinate delay is caused in passing an order pertaining to liberty of a citizen is not in tune with the constitutional mandate.
In the present case, the High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused. Therefore, the Supreme Court in the case granted him ad interim protection while observing that (i) it being a cross case arising out of civil dispute. (ii) Prima facie there being no such material to show that the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (the Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were also invoked. (iii) That there being a delay of six days in lodging of the FIR.
The bench in the case noted in an order of making this ad interim protection absolute that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation would not be necessary for the offence alleged with.
The bench comprising of Justice B R Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol in the case observed and has noted that the High Court by an order running into 13 pages, has rejected the application.
The bench stated that a detailed elaboration of evidence has to be avoided at the stage of grant or rejection of bail or the anticipatory bail. Thus, the said court did not appreciate such a lengthy elaboration of evidence at this stage.
Further, it has also been noted by the court that the order was reserved on January 25, 2023 and the High Court has pronounced the order on March 01, 2023 which being after a month of one month or a period of one week.
The Court observed that it is always being said that the matters which pertains to liberty of citizens, the Court should act promptly.
Accordingly, the court stated that such an inordinate delay in passing an order pertaining to liberty of a citizen is not in tune with the constitutional mandate.