Allahabad HC’s Order Stating Covid Is A Valid Ground For Anticipatory Bail Stayed By The SC

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The Top Court on Tuesday stayed the Allahabad High Court’s judgment which held that fear of death due to covid 19 is a valid ground for grant of Anticipatory bail.
• An order passed by Allahabad High Court cannot be considered as a precedent for anticipatory granting bail.
• The bench appointed Senior Advocate V. Giri, as amicus curiae in the issue to assist it on the larger aspect of whether COVID-19 can be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail.
• If the respondent fails to appear before the Court on the given date, it shall be considered a good enough reason for cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court – Supreme Court.
• The Courts must consider the facts of each case before granting anticipatory bail.

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed an order passed by the Allahabad High Court which held that fear of death due to covid 19 can be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail in the case State of Uttar Pradesh v/s Prateek Jain. The case deals with the grant of anticipatory bail during the pandemic. The Hon’ble High Court has issued various guidelines relating to the spread of the virus. The anticipatory bail was allowed to the applicant after analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case. Based on this it was held that grant of anticipatory bail due to apprehension of death due to covid is a valid ground. The Top Court said that the Courts should not consider the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court to grant anticipatory bail to accused in cases and must consider the merits of each case.

BACKGROUND OF ORDER PASSED BY ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

According to the High Court, “Apprehension of an accused being infected with novel coronavirus before and after his arrest and the possibility of his spreading the same while coming into contact with the police, Court and jail personnel or vice-versa can be considered to be a valid ground for grant of anticipatory bail to an accused"

The order was passed by the single bench judge, Hon’ble Justice Siddharth while hearing the anticipatory bail application of Prateek Jain. The Court emphasized that only when the accused would be alive, he would be subjected to the regular process of law of arrest, bail, and trial.

Hon’ble Justice Siddharthbelieved that law should be interpreted according to the changing time, “extraordinary times require extraordinary remedies”.

While referring to the recent order passed by the Supreme Court in Kerala Union of Working Journalists v/s Union of India and others which stated that fundamental right to life unconditionally embraces even under trial, Justice Siddharth held that right to life guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution is vital and by mere inference in a case of the alleged commission of a non-bailable offense, the right of the accused cannot be put in danger.

The bench observed that “The accused may be suffering from deadly infections of coronavirus, or police personnel who have arrested him and dealt with him may also be infected persons. Even in jail, a large number of inmates have been found infected. There is no proper testing, treatment, and care facilities from the inmates in jail.”

SUPREME COURT’S DIRECTION ON ALLAHABAD HC’S ORDER

The Apex Court bench comprising of Hon’ble Justices Vineet Saran and B. R Gavai while hearing an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh Government against the recent Allahabad High Court order held that the State lacks preparation and resources to tackle the spread of the virus and hence the person detained is at risk of contracting the virus.

The Higher Court said that the Courts should not consider the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court to grant anticipatory bail to accused in cases and must consider facts of each case. The Court ordered that the order passed by Allahabad High Court cannot be considered as a precedent for anticipatory granting bail.

The Top Court also appointed Senior Advocate V. Giri, as amicus curiae in the issue to help with the larger aspect of whether COVID-19 can be a ground for allowance of anticipatory bail. The Court also ordered the petitioners to provide Mr. Giri with a copy of the petition within three days.

The vacation bench stayed the order passed by Allahabad High Court on hearing the submissions made by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Mr. Mehta submitted that if you peruse the biodata of the accused, you come to know that the entire judgment proceeds on the basis that Covid is ground for anticipatory bail. The SG also stressed staying the observations made in the High Court’s order.

After hearing the submissions made by the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court ordered to issue notice returnable in the first week of July. The Hon’ble Court also stated that if the respondent fails to appear before the Court on the given date, it shall be considered a good enough reason for cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed that as far as the general provisions and directions in the impugned order are concerned the same shall remain stayed and the Courts shall not consider the said directions while considering other application for anticipatory bail, which shall be decided on the merit of each case, and not based on observations made in the impugned order.

Conclusion

After reading the order, it becomes evident that Covid 19 pandemic cannot be used as a ground for granting anticipatory bail. The Apex Court has made it clear in the directions passed by it that the orders passed by the Allahabad High Court cannot be used as a precedent for granting anticipatory bail. As of now, the Supreme Court has stated that if the respondent fails to appear before the court on the next hearing, it can lead to cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court of Allahabad.