The Apex Court, while allowing a criminal appeal, observed that the High Courts should refrain from adopting the procedure of passing “oral directions” in order to not allow the arrest of accused.
In the instant case, the accused had approached the Gujarat HC and sought for quashing of FIR lodged against him under Sections 405, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the petition, he had been arrested. When the proceeding began, the court issued oral directions, with immediate effect, for release of accused.
While hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that text of the order did not contain any directions restraining the arrest of accused. It further stated that if the High Court considered it fit to grant the interim protection against the arrest, it ought to have pass judicial order to that effect.
The bench remarked that such oral directions are irregular in nature and bear the tendency to cause serious misgivings unlike the written orders which are binding and enforceable.
Moreover, the bench provided for instances wherein such impugned order can be held valid- if proceedings are pending between the parties; and both the parties have ignited the course of criminal action.
Furthermore, the bench observed that the administration of criminal justice is not restricted to a private matter between complainant and accused, but also circumscribes wider interests of State which preserves law and order, along with societal interest.
Oral directions in-turn question the judicial accountability and such also set dangerous and unacceptable precedents. The judicial officers are bound to be accountable for their directions, observed the apex court.
The bench therefore, allowed the appeal and stated that High Courts are undoubtedly not expected to deliver detailed judgments for granting a stay on arrest but at least such reasons which reflect application of mind required according to the facts and circumstances.
Leave a Reply