Published On: January 18, 2023 07:02am IST
Expressing concern over protracted hearings on bail applications, the Supreme Court Tuesday said that it does not believe in keeping people behind the bars unnecessarily.
“We don’t believe in unnecessarily keeping people behind the bars. Bail matters should not go on and on and should not be dealt with in this manner,” Justice S K Kaul, heading a three-judge bench, said while hearing petitions filed by the Delhi police challenging the High Court order granting bail to three accused—Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha— facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 North East Delhi riots.
Hearing the appeal against the June 15, 2021 order of the High Court, the bench, also comprising Justices A K Oka and J B Pardiwala, said lengthy hearings were a waste of the HC’s judicial time.
“Should High Courts even be spending so many hours on bail matters? I don’t understand this. It’s a complete wastage of the High Court’s judicial time. Both sides want full trial to go on in a bail matter. I don’t understand,” remarked Justice Kaul.
As a counsel for the respondents said that the police had gone into the merits of the matter before the HC, Advocate Rajat Nair appearing for the Delhi police said the prosecution had only answered questions posed by the court.
Refusing to interfere with the bail granted to Kalita, Narwal and Tanha, the SC had on June 18, 2021, issued a notice in the matter. Expressing surprise, the bench said: “In a bail application, a 100-page judgment discussing all laws is surprising us…”
The bench also ordered that “the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent and may not be relied upon by any of the parties in any of the proceedings” pending final disposal of the matter.
The SC also “agreed” with “concerns” raised by the Solicitor General (SG) that the interpretation of the UAPA by the HC in the verdict raised several questions especially “since the legality of UAPA did not arise (in the proceedings before the HC)”.
The bench agreed to the request to defer the matter and posted it for next hearing on January 31.
