Judgment · Supreme Court

ABCDEFGH564SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 6 S.C.R.4. As far as the impugned order goes, we notice that the followingis the reasoning:“Taking into account that the co-accused, who has since beenreleased on bail has not surrendered, this Court is constrained not toentertain the bail application of the petitioner.” 5. Thereafter the Court proceeded to note the case of the appellantthat his father has undergone surgery and the Court proceeded to directexpeditious disposal of the case.6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and alsothe learned counsel for the State as noted.7. The impugned order shows that what has weighed with theCourt is the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has notsurrendered. It is this factor alone which we can discern to be the reasonto not entertain the bail application.8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of theview that the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has notsurrendered cannot be a germane factor to decline bail to the co-accused, namely, the appellant.9. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the matter musthave reconsideration again at the hands of the High Court. The appeal isallowed. The impugned order is set aside. The High Court will take upBLAPL No. 6803/2022 and pass orders on the same in view of the factthat it is a case where the charges have been framed and 19 prosecutionwitnesses are proposed to be examined by the State.10. We request the High Court to take up the application anddispose of the same at the earliest and if possible, preferably within aperiod of two months from the date of production of the copy of theorder. Divya PandeyAppeal allowed.(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)