The Apex Court has recently said When a Court concludes that the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial, granting bail only for a limited duration is illegal.
The appellant is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge of the Orissa High Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, he ended up granting interim bail for 45 days. The Appellant has approached the Supreme Court in appeal.
The Apex Court finds that the High Court was of the view that prolonged incarceration with no prospect of the trial coming to an end makes a case for the grant of bail.
In view of these findings recorded by the learned Judge, a case was made out to grant bail to the appellant till the disposal of the case. Interestingly, after recording these tentative findings, the High Court granted bail only for 45 days by describing it as an interim bail. But after granting the interim bail, as mentioned in the last paragraph of the impugned order, the learned Judge has finally disposed of the bail application. If an order granting interim bail was to be passed, the bail application should have been kept pending.
The Supreme Court Stated in its order that “ When a Court concludes that the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial, granting bail only for a limited duration is illegal. Such orders violate the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, it puts an additional burden on the litigant as he is forced to file a fresh bail application for an extension of the bail granted earlier.”
By modifying the impugned order dated 11th August 2023, Apex Court Granted Bail to appellant until the final disposal of the case.
Case title: Manoranjan rout v. State of Odisha, criminal appeal no.3633 of 2023
