Aakif Ateeque Nachan S/O Shri ... vs N.I.A
2022 Latest Caselaw 7615 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 292/2022

Aakif Ateeque Nachan S/o Shri Ateeque Nachan
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                     Versus
N.i.a., New Delhi Through Special P.p
                                                                  ----Respondent

Connected With D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 312/2022 Aakif Ateeque Nachan S/o Shri Ateeque Nachan

----Appellant Versus N.i.a., New Delhi Through Special P.p

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Syed Saadat Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP with Mr.Devesh Yadav

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order

05/12/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 794

"Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of

Gujarat". He has relied on para No.30 & 31 which is quoted here

under:-

"30 The logical and legal consequence of the grant of extension of time is the deprivation of the indefeasible right available to the accused to claim a default bail. If we accept the argument that the failure of the prosecution to produce the

(2 of 3) [CRLAD-292/2022]

accused before the Court and to inform him that the application of extension is being considered by the Court is a mere procedural irregularity, it will negate the proviso added by sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the 2015 Act and that may amount to violation of rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. The reason is the grant of the extension of time takes away the right of the accused to get default bail which is intrinsically connected with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The procedure contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution which is required to be followed before the liberty of a person is taken away has to be a fair and reasonable procedure. In fact, procedural safeguards play an important role in protecting the liberty guaranteed by Article 21. The failure to procure the presence of the accused either physically or virtually before the Court and the failure to inform him that the application made by the Public Prosecutor for the extension of time is being considered, is not a mere procedural irregularity. It is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21.

31 An attempt was made to argue that the failure to produce the accused will not cause any prejudice to him. As noted earlier, the grant of extension of time to complete the investigation takes away the indefeasible right of the accused to apply for default bail. It takes away the right of the accused to raise a limited objection to the prayer for the extension. The failure to produce the accused before the Court at the time of consideration of the application for extension of time will amount to a violation of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, prejudice is inherent and need not be established by the accused."

                                                                               (3 of 3)                 [CRLAD-292/2022]



                                         Learned        counsel    for    the     respondent/non-applicant         has

sought for some time to distinguish the same.

Let the matters be listed on 12.12.2022.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /54-55

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)