Delhi High Court: In a case raising the grievance that despite the sentence being suspended, the petitioner had not yet been released on bail, Amit Mahajan, J., opined that the while passing a bail order, the Court at times directs that the bail bonds be directly furnished to the Jail Superintendent, and the prisoner was not remitted to the Trial Court in order to facilitate the immediate release. Observing that the delay at the instance of the Jail Superintendent in accepting Bail Bonds was not acceptable to the conscience of the present Court, the Court directed the matter be registered as Sou Motu petition.
In a criminal revision petition, vide order dated 08-02-2024, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was suspended and he was directed to be released on bail on certain conditions and on furnishing a bail bond to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. Thereafter, an application was filed stating that the bail bond, which was directed to be furnished, had not been processed.
Thus, the petitioner raised the grievance that despite the sentence being suspended, the petitioner had not yet been released, and approached the present Court seeking modification in the order dated 08-02-2024, to the extent that the petitioner be directed to furnish the bail bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court instead of the concerned Jail Superintendent. It was alleged that the formalities in relation to the acceptance of bail bond by the Jail Superintendent took approximately two weeks.
The Court opined that the object of granting bails and suspending sentences was to release the accused/convict from imprisonment. In certain cases, interim bails were granted on medical grounds or some other exigencies, as expressed by the applicant. Therefore, the Court failed to understand why the period of one to two weeks were taken by the Jail Superintendent for accepting the bail bonds.
The Court opined that any order passed by the present Court to direct the release of the prisoner from jail was sent directly to the concerned jail authorities through Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records (‘FASTER’) cell. The Court opined that while passing a bail order, the Court at times directs that the bail bonds be directly furnished to the Jail Superintendent, and the prisoner was not remitted to the Trial Court in order to facilitate the immediate release.
Thus, the Court opined that the delay at the instance of the Jail Superintendent in accepting bail bonds was not acceptable to the conscience of the present Court, and accordingly directed the matter be registered as sou motu petition. The Court directed the notice of the present petition to be issued to the Director General of Prisons and Standing Counsel (Criminal), Government of NCT of Delhi.
The matter would next be listed on 07-03-2024.
[Court on its own motion v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1375, Order dated 19-02-2024]
