Bail Rejected By High Court For Absence Of Lawyers Due To Strike: Apex Court Sets Aside Order And Remands Matter

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal granted bail to an undertrial prisoner facing charges for the offence of murder. The Bench set aside the order and judgement of the Rajasthan High Court and reprimanded the matter to be decided afresh. The Court further noted that the bail application was rejected without due representation on Petitioner's behalf, as the lawyers were on strike on the date of the impugned order and judgement.

Advocate Namit Saxena appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Ronak Karanpuria appeared for the Respondent.

A Petition was filed challenging the impugned order of the High Court, wherein the Court dismissed the Bail Application of the Petitioner. The Petitioner contended that the High Court did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case as the Advocate was not present on account of the strike of Advocates in the Rajasthan High Court. The Petitioner was accused, along with seven others, of involvement in a violent incident, resulting in the death of the victim during the investigation. The Petitioner claimed innocence and contended that a prima facie case against him could not be established under various sections of the IPC.

Advocate Namit Saxena argued that when the bail application is decided on merits and rejected, all doors are closed for the accused to apply for bail afresh as another bail application cannot be filed without change in circumstances which should not be cosmetic in nature. Saxena also contended that chargesheet has been filed but the trial has not even commenced and is likely to take some time. Therefore the impugned order deserved to be set aside and bail be granted to the accused. 

The following issues needed to be ascertained; firstly, whether the denial of bail was unjustified due to a lack of evidence, secondly; whether dismissing the bail application was justified without hearing his side and in the absence of his advocate and thirdly; whether the proper balance between individual liberty and public interest was maintained.

During the hearing, the Petitioner's Advocate contended that at the time the impugned order was passed, lawyers were on strike in Rajasthan, and therefore no legal representative could be present in the court on behalf of the Petitioner. He further contended that after a bail application was rejected on merit, the accused was barred from filing another bail application without a change in circumstances.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition, set aside the impugned order and judgement and reprimanded the matter.

Cause Title: Bhagwan Das v. The State of Rajasthan