Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1485 of 2003
Special Leave Petition (crl.) 710 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Pusai
RESPONDENT:
State (NCT) of Delhi
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/2003
BENCH:
N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
In this matter, we had directed the release of the
appellant on bail as per order dated 25th of April, 2003. On
6th of May, 2003, we were informed that the appellant was
not yet released on bail, therefore, on that date, we directed
the matter to be listed the next day and called upon the
respondent to explain the delay in giving effect to the bail
order. On 8.5.2003, Sub-Inspector Amal Tyagi of Gokulpuri
Police Station, appeared before the Court and submitted that
his police station has nothing to do with the release of the
appellant, as directed by this Court. Therefore, we directed
the matter to be listed on 11th of July, 2003. In the said order,
we also directed the Superintendent, Central Jail of Tihar No.
II to be personally present in the Court. On 11.7.2003, we
called upon the said officer to explain the delay in giving
effect to the bail order. We also called upon the Union
Territory, namely, State (in City of Delhi) to file its response.
From the response filed by the said officers, it is seen
that the order made by this Court on 25th of April, 2003 was
received in Central Jail of Tihar No. II only on 1.5.2003 and
immediately on receipt of the same, the appellant was
informed to furnish the required bond with a surety. It is on
his furnishing such surety, the Trial Court, namely, the
Additional Sessions Judge issued a release order on 7.5.2003.
Consequent to which the appellant has been released
thereafter.
Though, in this case, there has been noticeable delay in
the release of the appellant in spite of the bail granted by this
Court, the same is due to the procedure involved in giving
effect to the bail order made by this Court and not due to any
individual’s laxity.
We place on record our appreciation for the assistance
rendered by Shri Vijay Panjwani, learned Advocate of this
Court as Amicus Curiae in the above matter. He shall be
paid a fee of Rs.750/-.
For the reasons stated above, this appeal is disposed of.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2