Read Time: 08 minutes

 Patna High Court has told the Supreme Court that there is “phenomenal increase” in filing of bail applications due to the enforcement of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

The top court, was hearing a plea of petitioner Abhyanand Sharma, represented by Advocate AR Takkar, who had approached the top court in a writ petition in an Excise Act offence, aggrieved by the non-listing of his regular bail application by the Patna High Court. The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (Act, 2016) prohibits the manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation, possession, sale, purchase and consumption of any intoxicant or liquor.

The high court said it is working with less than half of its sanctioned strength and the increase in filing of bail applications is causing delay in disposal of regular bail pleas. It informed the apex court that at present 39,622 bail applications, which include 21,671 anticipatory and 17,951 regular bail applications, are pending before the assigned benches. Further, 36,416 fresh bail applications, including 20,498 anticipatory and 15,918 regular bail applications, are yet to be taken up.

"At this stage, it is also relevant to mention that there is a phenomenal increase in the regular bail applications due to the enforcement of prohibition in the state of Bihar. Roughly, 25 per cent of the regular bail applications are arising under Bihar Excise Act. This has caused delay in disposal of regular bail applications," the Patna High Court has said in its affidavit.

The top court noted that it was a matter of concern if anticipatory bail applications were becoming infructuous because they were taken up for the first time after a year of their filing and regular bail applications had to be filed instead.

Advocate Shoeb Alam suggested that from an Article 21 perspective and in order to reduce the burden on the high court, "provisions of Section 436-A CrPC should be employed, which provides for grant of statutory bail to any person facing an investigation or trial, if such person has been in custody for more than one half of the maximum sentence specified for that offence," the Bench agreed to this suggestion.

Alam added that in 2015, a three-Judge bench of the top court had directed jurisdictional Magistrates and Sessions Judges to visit the prisons in their jurisdiction at least once every week and grant statutory bail to eligible prisoners under the said provision from the prison itself.

He also submitted that despite the efforts being made by the high court, most matters which were being heard by it on priority basis were those where a direction had been made by the apex court to expedite the listing or upon mentioning, the high court had itself agreed to list the matter urgently. The bench observed that it was also concerned why so many bail applications were being filed before the high court in the first place.

Referring to petty offences and magistrate triable offences, the bench remarked: "Once the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, why the bail shouldn't be granted."

The bench, however, said while it would not interfere with the functioning of the high court, it would place the suggestions before the Chief Justice of the High Court to consider since it is he who is aware of the ground realities and best suited to regulate the court's functioning.

Notably, on January 11, Supreme Court bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli told the counsel for Bihar, 

"You know how much impact created with this law in working of High Court in Bihar? It is taking one year in listing matters. All courts are busy with bail matters. I am told 14-15 judges are hearing these bail matters daily from morning to evening and no other matters are being taken up."

The Apex Court rejected as many as 40 appeals of the state government against grant of anticipatory and regular matters by the high court.

Abhyanand Sharma @ Tinku Sharma v. State of Bihar & Anr. 
[ANI]