The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly criticized the Allahabad High Court for adjourning the bail plea of an accused 27 times in a CBI-related cheating case, calling the delay a violation of personal liberty.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Augustine George Masih questioned,
“How can the high court adjourn the bail hearing 27 times in a matter related to personal liberty?”
The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Lakshya Tawar, who is facing multiple serious charges, including cheating and forgery.
The top court granted bail to Tawar and formally closed the pending matter before the Allahabad High Court, noting that the repeated deferrals had left the issue unresolved for an unacceptable length of time.
The bench also issued a notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) but clarified that the only issue it would now consider was the high court’s handling of the bail plea.
“In a matter of personal liberty, the high court is not expected to keep the matter pending and adjourn it 27 times,” said Chief Justice Gavai, expressing deep concern over the procedural delay.
Background of the Case
Tawar is accused under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:
Section 419 (cheating by personation)
Section 420 (cheating)
Section 467 (forgery of valuable security)
Section 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating)
Section 471 (using forged document as genuine)
Section 120B (criminal conspiracy)
He also faces charges under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI is prosecuting the case.
The Allahabad High Court had earlier deferred the bail hearing on March 20, instructing the trial court to speed up the proceedings before revisiting the bail application.
It cited Tawar’s criminal history, which includes 33 previously registered cases, and also instructed the CBI to ensure the presence of complainant Sanjay Kumar Yadav to avoid further delays.
High Court’s Directive
In its last hearing, the high court had mandated that the complainant’s statement be recorded on the scheduled date and that the accused must be given an opportunity for cross-examination the same day.
Despite these instructions, the Supreme Court emphasized that repeated adjournments in matters involving personal liberty are not acceptable and must be avoided in future judicial proceedings.
This stern message from the apex court underscores the judiciary’s growing concern over procedural delays, especially in cases where personal liberty is at stake. It also serves as a reminder to lower courts to prioritize such cases and act within reasonable timelines.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
