The Supreme Court has expressed shock on the Allahabad High Court's failure to decide a bail application filed four years ago, but did not call for any report from the High Court considering that the trial was on the verge of completion. A perusal of record of proceedings of the High Court reveals that the delay was due to various reasons: the non-appearance of the applicant's counsel, the non-disclosure of a previous Order rejecting bail or simply time being "short" on the day the Petitioner's bail application was listed.

A two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan said, "We are shocked to learn from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the bail application filed by the petitioner in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 40542 of 2020 is still pending as on date."

Advocate Md. Anas Chaudhary appeared for the Petitioner.

The Court was informed that despite the bail application having being filed in 2020, the High Court was yet to take a decision. It was further informed that the trial is in progress and the prosecution has closed its evidence.

"Perhaps, what is now left could be the recording of the further statement of the petitioner- accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the final arguments." the Court observed.

Despite the prolonged delay in deciding the bail application, the Court did not ask for any explanation from the High Court, citing the trial being on the verge of completion as the reason.

"Since the trial is on the verge of the completion, we are not willing to call for any report from the High Court as to why this bail application is pending past 04 years." the Court said.

However, the Court ordered that its Order be placed before the High Court for consideration. "[T]he Registry shall forward this order to the High Court with a request to place this order before Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad for his kind consideration." the Court ordered.

The bail application pending before the High Court is the second bail application filed by the Petitioner, the first having been rejected by the High Court in May 2020.

A perusal of record of proceedings of the High Court in the case reveals that in November and December 2020 and in January 2021, the Court had adjourned the matter. In March 2021, it recorded that no one was present on behalf of the applicant. In April of that year, the Court allowed the informant time to file a counter affidavit and the applicant time to file a rejoinder affidavit after that.

In March 2022, the Court ordered pleadings to be exchanged. In April, it recorded that the matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time. In August 2023, it noted that the Order rejecting the first bail application shows that the trial was expedited. The Court asked the counsel for the applicant whether the said Order was placed before the Trial Court, which he was unable to disclose. The Court granted him time to seek instructions.

In October 2023, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant again. A request by the local Bar Association was circulated for not passing any adverse order in the matters that day due to traffic restrictions in the city. In this view, the Court adjourned the matter. In December of that year, the Court recorded that the applicant had served a copy of the supplementary affidavit to the informant and the State counsel. The Court granted time to reply to it.

In March 2024, the Court recorded that "connected bail application is under search. Let the connected file be searched out urgently." It also recorded that the applicant had not informed the Trial Court about the Order rejecting the first bail application. The Court asked his counsel to file a further affidavit disclosing the correct facts "with respect to proceeding that may have arisen pursuant to the rejection of the first bail application."

Also in March 2024, the Court was orally informed that the Order rejecting the first bail application had still not been placed before the Trial Court. The Court also the informant time to file objection to the second bail application and supplementary affidavit in support of it. In April of that year, the Court granted the respondent "one week's and no more time to complete his instructions and file objection, if any."

"Time is short today.", the Court said in August 2024. "Time is also short today." it said in September 2024, which is the last Order available in the matter.

Cause Title: Imran v. State of Uttar Pradesh [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No. 61209/2024]

Appearance: Advocates Kavindra Yadav, Alia Bano Zaidi and Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Petitioner.

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice JB PardiwalaJustice R. Mahadevan

Tushar Kohli