The Supreme Court recently took strong exception with the Allahabad High Court for listing a matter before the same bench that failed to passed a verdict in the case within six months of reserving it.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah condemned the Allahabad High Court’s decision to rehear a case before a bench that had previously failed to deliver its judgment in the same case within six months of reserving its verdict.
“We are of the view that thereafter the matter was required to be handed over to another Bench, more so, in the manner it has proceeded even thereafter, simply being assigned to the same Bench and thereafter being concluded on that date by the same Bench…We thus, cannot appreciate the reassigning of the matter to the same Bench and we direct that the matter be assigned by Hon’ble Chief Justice to another Bench,” the order reads.
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by a convict seeking bail on the grounds that the High Court had yet to render its decision despite reserving it in August 2022.
The appellant stated that he had already served 16 years, 9 months, and 18 days in actual custody, and that his appeal has been pending before the High Court since 2014.
On the last day of hearing, the Supreme Court requested a report from the High Court on the status of the reserved judgment. According to the Registrar General of the High Court, the judgment has not been reserved and the case has been scheduled for hearing before the same bench on May 12.
The arguments were concluded on May 12, and the bench directed the parties to file written submissions by May 15. The case was then scheduled for judgment on May 19.
The appellant relied on the decision in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001), which held that if a judgment is not issued within six months, it should be remanded to another bench for new arguments.
In light of this, the Court expressed its displeasure that, despite being asked to reassign the case, it was assigned to the same bench.
Furthermore, because the appellant had already spent over 16 years and 9 months in actual custody, the Court granted him bail subject to the final judgment.
“We may notice that the appellant has been in custody for 16 years 9 months and 18 days (as on 09.04.2023). Despite the opposition by the learned counsel for the complainant, we have little option but to release the appellant on interim bail in the present case in view of what we had recorded aforesaid subject to the final judgment,” the bench stated.
While dismissing the appeal, the Court requested that the new bench assigned to this case take it up as soon as possible.
“Reluctant as we are to observe, we would request the Bench now assigned to take up the matter as expeditiously as possible,” the bench remarked.
