Home > Recent Judgements > No Necessity To Call Upon Accused To File Counter In Extension Application, Presence Only Needed To Consider Objections: Madras High Court
DEC 05, 2024
BACKGROUND
In case between Mohamed Asaruthin vs State of Tamil Nadu, the case revolves around the rejection of statutory bail applications by accused individuals, who argued that their right to bail accrued upon the expiration of the statutory period, despite the prosecution’s timely filing of extension applications. The prosecution argued that the trial court’s inability to decide on these applications should not be a disadvantage. However, the Madras High Court found that the trial court violated Supreme Court guidelines by failing to consider both the extension and bail applications simultaneously and within the time range specified. Due to these procedural violations and the lack of sufficient grounds for their continued detention, the Madras High Court decided in favour of the accused and granted them statutory bail.
ISSUES
- Whether the trial court implemented the Supreme Court’s directions to assess both the extension and statutory bail applications concurrently?
- Whether the trial court’s delay in ruling on extension applications deprives the accused of their right to statutory bail, despite the fact that the statutory period has expired?
JUDGEMENT
The Madras High Court ruled in favour of the accused, holding that they were entitled to statutory release due to mistakes made by the trial court and insufficient justifications from the prosecution. The court determined that the trial court violated Supreme Court directives by neglecting to review the extension and bail applications concurrently and failed to rule on the extension applications within the seven-day timeframe. The High Court also criticised the prosecution for offering ambiguous reasons, such as the accused’s “absconding,” which did not reach the requisite standard of specific and compelling grounds for further detention. The court emphasised the importance of following appropriate procedure, stating that extension applications must indicate considerable progress in the inquiry and valid reasons for continuing detention.
OBSERVATION
The case demonstrates the importance of adhering to the rules and ensuring justice throughout the legal procedure. The Madras High Court stated that the trial court should consider both the extension and bail requests concurrently and determine them within seven days. The court also made it clear that ambiguous arguments, such as claiming the accused is “absconding,” are insufficient to hold someone in custody. The prosecution must provide clear and compelling grounds. The court confirmed that the accused has a right to bail once the legal time limit passes, and this can’t be ignored without good reasons. Overall, the case emphasises the need of judges acting fast, following the regulations, and protecting the accused’s rights.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
