Summary
The Court set aside post-conviction bail orders because the High Court had not followed the requirement to afford the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to object in writing. It remitted the applications for fresh consideration while allowing the affected convicts to remain out of custody during that exercise. In a connected appeal, the Court required independent consideration of another convict’s application instead of postponement merely because a co-convict’s bail was under challenge.
Issues
- Whether oral hearing of the prosecutor satisfied the statutory procedure for post-conviction bail in serious offences.
- What reconsideration and interim arrangements were appropriate, including for the connected applicant.
Provisions considered
- Section 389(1), first and second provisos, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Opportunity for written prosecutorial objections had to precede release in the specified serious-offence cases. The separate cancellation mechanism did not excuse failure to follow that procedure. (¶¶ 5, 8, 10)
Held
- Post-conviction bail differs from undertrial bail under Section 439. Where the court considers release in a serious-offence case covered by the first proviso, the prosecutor must receive an opportunity to show cause in writing; merely having heard the prosecutor did not cure the omitted procedure. (¶¶ 5, 8)
- The possibility of a later prosecutorial cancellation application under the second proviso could not replace compliance with the first proviso. The impugned orders failed to conform to law and required fresh consideration, without any expression on the merits. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- The High Court was requested to decide the remitted applications within six weeks of production of the order. The respondents need not surrender pending that consideration, but their continued liberty depended on its outcome. (¶ 10)
- The connected applicant’s suspension and bail application had to be decided on its individual merits, rather than kept pending solely because a co-convict’s release was challenged before the Supreme Court. Early disposal, preferably within six weeks of production of this judgment, was requested. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
Result
First two appeals allowed; bail orders set aside and applications remitted, with no surrender required during reconsideration and disposal requested within six weeks of production. Connected appeal disposed of with directions for independent, early consideration, preferably within six weeks; merits left open.