MARTIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application was referred to by a learned single Judge disagreeing with the direction of another learned single Judge in Usman v. S.I. of Police ( 2003 (2) KLT 594 ). The above order was already overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Balan v. State of Kerala ( 2003 (3) KLT 472 ). But direction No. iii in Usman's case was not considered specifically by the Division Bench. The direction No. iii is as follows:

(2.) In Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka ( 2002 (2) KLT 189 (SC)) a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows:

(3.) We are of the opinion that the above observations are applicable here also. From the facts of each case, High Court is empowered to give directions for disposal of a particular case and some guidelines can be prescribed including laying down of time limits or chalking out a time limit to follow. But an outer limit cannot be prescribed as a general direction. It can be prescribed only by law. There may be circumstances where Court may not be able to dispose of a bail application within three days, due to the facts of certain cases, absence of Public Prosecutor etc. In this particular case the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge for the reason that it was not possible to grant bail since the case diary was not produced within three days of the filing of the application and hence the learned Sessions Judge was not able to know the stage of the investigation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the issuance of the order in Usman's case, many applications for bail were dismissed by the Sessions Courts as case diary was not produced or instructions were not received by the Public Prosecutor and therefore no decision can be taken by it on merits within the outer time limit of three days. A general direction can be issued stating that bail application can be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Perhaps an ideal outer limit as far as procedure to be followed also can be suggested. But a positive direction prescribing an outer limit like legislative direction to be followed in all cases cannot be issued while considering the facts of a particular case. The reference is answered accordingly. With regard to the bail application in this matter already bail was granted on 18.12.2003. No further orders are necessary.