http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1485 of 2003 Special Leave Petition (crl.)  710 of 2003

PETITIONER: Pusai                                                    

RESPONDENT: State (NCT) of Delhi             

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/2003

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

               Heard learned counsel for the parties.   

Leave granted.

       In this matter, we had directed the release of the  appellant on bail as per order dated 25th of April, 2003.  On  6th of May, 2003, we were informed that the appellant was  not yet released on bail, therefore, on that date, we directed  the matter to be listed the next day and called upon the  respondent to explain the delay in giving effect to the bail  order.  On 8.5.2003, Sub-Inspector Amal Tyagi of Gokulpuri  Police Station, appeared before the Court and submitted that  his police station has nothing to do with the release of the  appellant, as directed by this Court.  Therefore, we directed  the matter to be listed on 11th of July, 2003.  In the said order,  we also directed the Superintendent, Central Jail of Tihar No.  II to be personally present in the Court.  On 11.7.2003, we  called upon the said officer to explain the delay in giving  effect to the bail order.  We also called upon the Union  Territory, namely, State (in City of Delhi) to file its response.           From the response filed by the said officers, it is seen  that the order made by this Court on 25th of April, 2003 was  received in Central Jail of Tihar No. II only on 1.5.2003 and  immediately on receipt of the same, the appellant was  informed to furnish the required bond with a surety.  It is on  his furnishing such surety, the Trial Court, namely, the  Additional Sessions Judge issued a release order on 7.5.2003.   Consequent to which the appellant has been released  thereafter.         Though, in this case, there has been noticeable delay in  the release of the appellant in spite of the bail granted by this  Court, the same is due to the procedure involved in giving  effect to the bail order made by this Court and not due to any  individual’s laxity.         We place on record our appreciation for the assistance  rendered by Shri Vijay Panjwani, learned Advocate of this  Court as Amicus Curiae in the above matter.  He shall be  paid a fee of Rs.750/-.                 For the reasons stated above, this appeal is disposed of.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2