SC stays Allahabad HC order granting anticipatory bail over Covid death fear

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, May 25 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed “sweeping” directions issued by Allahabad High Court, which had granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a cheating case observing that apprehension of death due to Covid-19 infection can be a valid ground for granting the relief.

A Vacation Bench headed by Justice Vineet Sharan said courts shall not consider the directions issued by the high court on May 10 for grant of anticipatory bail to accused in other cases.

“Sweeping directions have been made, we therefore direct the same to be stayed and the courts shall not consider the directions to grant anticipatory bail to accused in other cases and must consider merits of each case,” the top court said.

It appointed senior advocate V Giri as amicus curiae to assist it to decide if Covidcan be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail.

The top court passed the order on an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government challenging the May 10 order of the Allahabad High Court after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that accused Prateek Jain — given anticipatory bail till January 2022 — had 130 cases pending against him. It also issued notice to Jain.

The HC order had been relied on in many other cases and several other accused had been seeking anticipatory bail on the same ground, Mehta pointed out.

The top court also stayed a Rajasthan High Court’s controversial order restraining the police from arresting accused charged under offence punishable with a maximum sentence of up to three years till July 17 and not to list pre-arrest bail applications before the High Court as well as Sessions Court.

In a rare move, the Rajasthan High Court itself approached the Supreme Court against its own single judge’s order to the DGP not to arrest such accused.

The high court challenged the order on the ground that the direction will “create a situation of lawlessness” and that it ignored the settled principle of law that Chief Justice is the “Master of Roster” of the HC.

The single judge “erroneously violated” the principle of law, rulings and conventions by “interfering into the exclusive administrative jurisdiction of the Chief Justice”, the Rajasthan High Court submitted through its Registrar General.

The Rajasthan government supported the high court’s submissions and said the order needed to be stayed.