1995 (2) TMI 480 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court Can't Mandate Same-Day Bail Decisions; U.P. Act Validity Upheld, Repeals Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The Full Bench determined that the HC cannot mandate same-day bail application decisions or grant interim bail if unresolved the same day, emphasizing ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court, exercising powers u/s Article 226 of the Constitution, can issue directions to Magistrate or Sessions Court to consider bail applications on the same day.2. Whether the High Court can direct the release of the accused on interim bail if the bail application is not concluded the same day.3. Examination of the validity and implications of U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976 repealing Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in Uttar Pradesh.Summary:Issue 1: Directions for Same Day Bail ConsiderationThe Full Bench unanimously held that the High Court, while exercising powers u/s Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot fix a time schedule for concluding bail proceedings. The decision in Dr. Hidavat Hussain Khan v. State of U.P., (1992 Crl. LJ 3534) was overruled, and the decision in Noor Mohammad v. State of U.P. was upheld. The Court emphasized that the provisions of the Code do not envisage the disposal of bail applications on the same day and that such directions would violate the provisions of law and subvert the process inherent in bail determination.Issue 2: Interim BailThe Full Bench concluded that the provision for granting interim bail is not implicit in the main provision of bail. The Court observed that the law declared by the apex Court is binding and that interim bail cannot be granted merely because the bail application is not concluded on the same day. The Court maintained that the provisions of Section 437(1) & (2) of the Cr.P.C. are stringent and must be literally and strictly construed to promote the object of the statute.Issue 3: Validity of U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976The Full Bench upheld the validity of U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976, which repealed Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in Uttar Pradesh, stating that it does not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. This view was affirmed by the apex Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that the deletion of Section 438 in U.P. is valid under Articles 245(2) and 345(2) of the Constitution.Conclusion:The Full Bench directed that bail applications should be decided expeditiously in accordance with the law but rejected the notion of fixing a time schedule for same-day consideration or granting interim bail pending disposal of the bail application. The Court emphasized maintaining judicial discipline and adhering to the statutory provisions of the Cr.P.C.