In the case of Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal and Anr vs State of Maharashtra two persons who have been charged with crimes punishable by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have filed an anticipatory bail application. This was because the criminal complaint took so long to be filed, no crime was first shown by the allegations, and the situation appeared to be the consequence of a civil disagreement. The bail requests had been dismissed earlier that month by the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench. The Supreme Court is hearing the appeal.
Analysis of SC decision
Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, sitting on a supreme court bench, granted bail to the accused after stressing the importance of swift action by judicial bodies in cases involving civil freedoms. Second, there was no evidence that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989’s provisions had been used, and third, there had been a six-day delay in filing the FIR.
The Supreme Court observed that bail orders should be brief and issued promptly by all courts around the nation. When deciding on the bail application, the Supreme Court declared the earlier interim order absolute and noted that no custodial interrogation would be necessary and that it was a cross-case resulting from a civil conflict. It is best to refrain from elaborating on the evidence in great detail when anticipatory bail is being granted. It is good knowledge that the Court should move swiftly in cases involving the liberties of citizens. The court stated that excessive delay in making a decision affecting a citizen’s liberty is not in accordance with the fundamental requirement. The two accused were given protection from arrest by the top court.