(Revised)
“R E P O R T A B L E”
ITEM NO.65 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16025/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-12-2023
in MCRCA No. 1434/2023 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at
Bilaspur)
KAVISH GUPTA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 257191/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 257192/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 16047/2023 (II-C)
(FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA
257397/2023
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 257398/2023
IA No. 257397/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 257398/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 11-12-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sidharth Dave, Sr. Adv.(N.P.)
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, Adv.
Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, Adv.
Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR
Mr. Prashast Puri, Adv.
Mr. Paavan Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. M. Shaz Khan, Adv.
Mr. Adnan Yousuf, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Kartikeye Dang, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Vijay Kumar
Date: 2023.12.18
Mr. Sahir Seth, Adv.
10:46:47 IST
Reason:
For Respondent(s)
1
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP (Crl.) No.16025/2023
It is submitted that during the pendency of the application,
the petitioner was arrested. In such circumstances, this
application has become infructuous.
The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed as having become
infructuous. However, it will be open to the petitioner to avail
remedy available in the said circumstances by moving appropriate
application.
SLP(Crl) No. 16047/2023
1. This Court held and reiterated that decisions on anticipatory
bail applications / bail applications, are concerned with the
liberty and therefore, shall be taken up and disposed of,
expeditiously. On 21.02.2022 in SLP (Crl) No.1247/2022, a Bench of
three Judges of this Court reiterated the same view. Virtually,
this Court deprecated the practice of admitting the bail
applications and thereafter deferring decisions on it unduly. The
case on hand reveals recurrence of such a situation despite the
repeated pronouncements of this Court on the very issue. In the
case on hand, the petitioner who is accused No.1 in F.I.R.
No.218/2023 of Police Station Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
registered under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. Later, Sections 467, 468, 409 and 471, IPC were
2
also added. When the application was listed on 06.12.2023 before
the Court, the Court passed the following order which reads, thus:-
“Mr. Aman Saxena, counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. Advocate General for the State.
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the case Diary.
List this case in its chronological order.”
It is aggrieved by the said order that the captioned appeal
has been preferred.
2. Heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner at length.
3. The aforestated order would reveal that on 06.12.2023, the
matter was taken up for consideration and after hearing the
petitioner, it was admitted and the case Diary was called for. At
the same time, its discernible from the order that the case was not
specifically posted to any date. What was ordered was to list the
matter in its chronological order. When the matter would be placed
before the Court for further consideration, in such circumstances,
is nothing but a matter of guess.
4. We have no hesitation to hold that such an order sans
definiteness in the matter relating to anticipatory bail/regular
bail, that too after admitting the matter, would definitely delay
due consideration of the application and such an eventuality will
3
be detrimental to the liberty of a person. It is taking into
account such aspects that this Court held that such matters
pertaining to personal liberty shall be taken up and decided at the
earliest. It is a matter of concern that despite repeated orders,
the same situation continues.
5. Hence, we request the learned Single Judge of the High Court
to dispose of the pending anticipatory bail application, pending
adjudication before him, on its own merits and in accordance with
law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks
from the receipt/ production of this Order. Till such time, we
grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner. We also
make it clear that the grant of interim protection shall not
influence the consideration of the bail application moved by the
petitioner and it shall be considered on its own merits. In view
of the recurrence of the said situation in different courts, the
Registry shall send a copy of this Corder to the Ld. Registrar
General and all concerned of all the High Courts so as to ensure
listing of bail applications/ anticipatory bail applications at the
earliest.
6. The Special Leave Petition stand disposed of, as above.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
4
ITEM NO.65 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16025/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-12-2023
in MCRCA No. 1434/2023 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at
Bilaspur)
KAVISH GUPTA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 257191/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 257192/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 16047/2023 (II-C)
(FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA
257397/2023
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 257398/2023
IA No. 257397/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 257398/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 11-12-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sidharth Dave, Sr. Adv.(N.P.)
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, Adv.
Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, Adv.
Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR
Mr. Prashast Puri, Adv.
Mr. Paavan Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. M. Shaz Khan, Adv.
Mr. Adnan Yousuf, Adv.
Mr. Kartikeye Dang, Adv.
Mr. Sahir Seth, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
5
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP (Crl.) No.16025/2023
It is submitted that during the pendency of the application,
the petitioner was arrested. In such circumstances, this
application has become infructuous.
The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed as having become
infructuous. However, it will be open to the petitioner to avail
remedy available in the said circumstances by moving appropriate
application.
SLP(Crl) No. 16047/2023
1. This Court held and reiterated that decisions on anticipatory
bail applications / bail applications, concerned with the liberty
shall be taken up and disposed of, expeditiously. On 21.02.2022 in
SLP (Crl) No.1247/2022, a Bench of three Judge Bench of this Court
reiterated the same view. Virtually, this Court deprecated the
practice of admitting the bail applications and at the same time,
not taking up thereafter. The case on hand reveals that the same
situation continues despite the repeated pronouncements of this
Court on the aforesaid issue. In case on hand, the petitioner who
is accused No.1 in connection with F.I.R. No.218/2023 of Police
Station Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh under Section 420 read
with Section 34, and later added Section 467,468, 409 and 471 of
6
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. When the application was listed on
06.12.2023 before the Court, the Court passed the following order
which reads, thus:-
“Mr. Aman Saxena, counsel for the application.
Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. Advocate General for the State.
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the case Diary.
List this case in its chronological order.”
It is aggrieved by the said order that the captioned appeal
has been preferred.
2. Heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner at length.
3. The aforestated order would reveal that on 06.12.2023, the
matter was taken up for consideration and after hearing the
petitioner, it was admitted and the case Diary was called for. At
the same time, its discernible from the order that the case was not
specifically posted to any date. What was ordered was to list the
matter in its chronological order. When the matter would be placed
before the Court for further consideration, in such circumstances,
it is nothing but a matter of guess.
4. We have no hesitation to hold that this action of indefinite
7
adjournment in matter relating to anticipatory bail, that too after
admitting the matter would definitely detrimental to the liberty of
a person. Taking into account such aspects that this Court held
that such matters pertaining to personal liberty shall be taken up
and decided at the earliest. It is a matter of concerned that
despite repeated orders, the same situation continues.
5. We request the learned Single Judge of the High Court to
dispose of the pending anticipatory bail application, pending
adjudication before him, on its own merits and in accordance with
law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks
from the receipt/ production of this Order. Till such time, we
grant interim production from arrest to the petitioner. We also
make it clear that granting of interim protection shall not
influence the consideration of the bail application moved by the
petitioner and it shall be considered on its own merits. In view
of the recurrence of the said situation, the Registry shall send a
copy of this Corder to the Ld. Registrar General and all concerned
of the High Court so as to ensure listing of bail applications/
anticipatory bail applications at the earliests.
6. The Special Leave Petition stand disposed of, as above.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
