Granting Bail For Limited Period Is Illegal If Accused Is Found Entitled To Bail Pending Trial: Supreme Court

The Orissa High Court in the impugned order had concluded that the appellant was entitled to be enlarged on bail, however ended up granting interim bail for 45 days.

Consequentially, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal in the Special Leave Petition thus observed, “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”.

The bench further noting that this was not the first time that such an order was passed by the High Court, also observed, “We may note here that this is the fifth or sixth order which we came across from the same High Court where, after recording a finding that an accused was entitled to be enlarged on bail, the High Court has chosen to grant either interim bail or bail for a short duration”.

Advocate Haraprasad Sahu appeared for the petitioner and AOR Prakash Ranjan Nayak appeared for the respondent.

The appellant in the matter, was being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The tentative findings in the impugned order were:

(1) By the order dated September 5, 2022 passed by the High Court on the earlier bail application filed by the appellant, while denying the relief of bail, the High Court had directed the disposal of the case within six months. However, no progress has been made in the trial;

(2) The appellant has been in custody since April 9, 2021. Notwithstanding the direction dated September 5, 2022 to dispose of the case within six months, only 5 out of 25 witnesses have been examined till date, and

(3) There is a prolonged incarceration of the appellant without disposal of the case.

Therefore, in brief the High Court was of the opinion that prolonged incarceration with no prospect of the trial coming to an end makes a case for the grant of bail.

Noting the same, the Apex Court further said that “…if an order granting interim bail was to be passed, the bail application should have been kept pending”.

Accordingly, the bench while allowing the appeal, modified the impugned order directing the appellant to be enlarged on bail until the final disposal of the case on the same terms and conditions mentioned in the impugned order.

Cause Title: Manoranjan Rout v. State of Odisha