Categories: Other Courts

Supreme Court seeks action against judge as the accused undergoes 2 extra years custody after the trial court misinterprets Supreme Court order

The Supreme Court in the case Gopishetty Harikrishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh SLP observed that the accused is in still in the custody, even after securing interim bail from the Apex Court and further the court observed that it was because of the misinterpretation of its order by a trial court judge in Andhra Pradesh. On 20th October, 2020., the bail application was drafted and on 29th October 2020 it was filled before the Trial Court and on misinterpreting the order passed by the Apex Court, The Trial Court refused to grant bail and even after the Supreme Court granted him bail the accused was not release further It was asserted that in view of the COVID-19 restrictions prevalent at that point in time, the accused could not be immediately moved. The Registry of the Court had explained the delay stating that the order was transmitted through electronic medium immediately, but the physical copy was sent in due course the order dated 28th September 2020 the granting of bail was received in the prison on 6th October 2020., Central Prison Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, submitted before the court in its response of the Superintendent. the Supreme Court had recorded in its order that till then the accused was not released on bail as on 20th April 2022 the matter came up before the Supreme Court and on 25th April 2022, it sought explanation from the concerned police and jail officials as After granting bail on 28th September, 2020. the application was not maintainable as three days’ time period set-out by the Apex Court had expired and the court refused to enlarge him on bail as the bail application came up before the Trial Court on 29th September 2020. Further the court directed the Trial Court to release him on interim bail on such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate. the Apex Court had granted interim bail to the accused and directed that he be p r o du c e d b e f o r e t h e Trial Court within three days from that date of order i.e., on 28th September 2020. the order passed by the High Court states after expiry of time as per orders of Supreme Court, how the petition in maintainable and hence it is to be returned. The four-judge bench comprising Justice U.U. Lalit, justice S. Ravindra Bhat, justice P.S. Narasimha and the justice Sudhanshu observed in the present case of Hussainara Khatoon and Motil Ram, where custody for 9 years was found to be sufficient to enlarge him on bail.

- -

Recent Posts

Akshay Kumar Moves Bombay HC To Protect His Personality Rights

Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar has approached the Bombay High Court seeking protection of his personality…

2 months ago

Bribery Case: CBI Arrests NHIDCL Executive Director

The Central Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday arrested the Executive Director and Regional Officer of…

2 months ago

Supreme Court Issues Slew Of Directions On Green Crackers Issue

The Supreme Court on Wednesday laid down detailed interim guidelines permitting the sale and use…

2 months ago

INX Media Case: Delhi HC Relaxes Travel Restrictions On Karti Chidambaram

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday relaxed the travel restrictions placed on Congress MP Karti…

2 months ago

Delhi HC Rules Lawyers’ Offices Not Commercial Establishments; Quashes NDMC Case Against Advocate

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday clarified that the professional office of a lawyer does…

2 months ago

Delhi HC Allows Actor Rajpal Yadav To Travel To Dubai For Diwali Event

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday permitted actor Rajpal Yadav to travel to Dubai to…

2 months ago