Yesterday, On 25th October, The Supreme Court reprimanded the Patna High Court for issuing post-dated bail orders, questioning the practice and its legal basis. In a notable development, the Supreme Court’s order also includes the names of lawyers as ‘arguing counsel,’ reflecting a shift in its approach following recent judgments on transparency and accountability.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday raised objections to the Patna High Court issuing bail orders that would take effect only after a five-month delay.
A Bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma emphasized that such a condition is untenable and remanded the cases back to the High Court for reconsideration on their merits.
Read Also: “Prima facie, this is illegal”: Supreme Court Slams UP Police
The Supreme Court observed,
“This is one of the few orders we have come across in the last few days…in which, without deciding the matter on merits, the High Court has granted bail…subject to the condition that the petitioner-accused shall furnish the bail bonds after five months of the passing of the order,”
It continued,
“There are no reasons assigned as to why the implementation of the order granting bail was postponed for five months…If the Court is satisfied on merits, it should grant bail or otherwise, reject the same.”
The observations were made while resolving criminal appeals against two orders issued by the Patna High Court last month.
The Supreme Court issued its ruling without waiting for a response from the Bihar government and scheduled both bail applications to be heard by the High Court on November 11.
Advocate Shivam Singh represented the accused in both cases, with the appeals filed by Advocate Kailas Bajirao Autade.
The challenged orders were issued by Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey of the Patna High Court. In July, the Supreme Court also criticized the trend of High Courts granting conditional bail that becomes effective only after six months or a year.
A bench consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih ultimately overturned a Patna High Court order that stipulated a murder-accused could only be released on bail after a six-month period.
Read Also: Supreme Court Slams Uttarakhand HC Judge for Unwarranted Remarks Against Lawyers
Notably, the current order sheet from the Supreme Court identifies the lawyers as the ‘arguing counsel,’ marking what may be a first step in accordance with recent rulings on this matter.
In September, the same bench, led by Justice Trivedi, ruled that advocates-on-record (AoR) must only list those lawyers authorized to appear and argue in court on the specific day.
Additionally, another bench recently mandated that only those lawyers present in court, either physically or virtually, may officially mark their appearance for cases. The bench emphasized that it is unjust for lawyers who were absent during the hearing to mark their attendance.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
