The Delhi High Court on Monday granted interim relief to Uday Bhanu Chib, President of the Indian Youth Congress. It stayed a Sessions Court order that had put on hold the bail a Magistrate granted him in the shirtless protest case linked to the recent India AI Impact Summit.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee said the Sessions Court order, prima facie, showed no application of mind. The Court also stressed that any order curtailing personal liberty must disclose clear reasons.
During the hearing, the Court underlined that liberty-related orders cannot rest on bare conclusions. “Some application of mind has to be there… If there is no application of mind, the order has to be stayed,” Justice Banerjee observed.
Arguments for Chib
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for Chib. He argued that the Sessions Court stayed the Magistrate’s bail order ex parte. As a result, Chib continued in custody despite the bail grant.
“Order is passed ex parte and you keep the man in custody. This is shocking,” Luthra submitted. He also flagged the urgency. “This is something on liberty. I am very anxious,” he said.
Further, Luthra contended that the Magistrate refused police custody and granted bail at the remand stage itself. According to him, the Delhi High Court Rules permit this course. He therefore argued that the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to interfere.
Luthra also submitted that once a court decides a bail plea on merits, the order does not remain interlocutory. Hence, he said, a revision would not lie. In addition, he alleged procedural lapses. He claimed the police custody application was not supplied when Chib was produced before the Magistrate.
Calling the Sessions Court’s decision “wholly bereft of reasoning,” Luthra read the impugned order in court.
High Court’s prima facie view
After perusing the order, Justice Banerjee questioned the prosecution on the absence of findings.
“Where is reasoning in this order? You see page 1… turn over the page… where is reasoning or finding?” the Court asked.
The High Court also emphasised that if a court stays a bail order, it must explain the legal basis. In particular, it must show how the cited precedent fits the facts.
“Please show me application of mind in this… We are all humans. We have to see from the perspective of liberty,” Justice Banerjee observed.
State’s submissions
Additional Solicitor General DP Singh appeared for the State. He submitted that the investigation remains ongoing. He also argued that the Sessions Court stayed what was essentially a remand order, and that bail followed only as a consequence.
According to the State, the challenged order itself was illegal. On that basis, the ASG sought to justify the Sessions Court’s intervention.
However, the High Court remained unconvinced.
“Let’s not go into all those. I am openly saying that I am not satisfied with your submissions. The order has to be stayed because there is no application of mind,” Justice Banerjee said.
Interim stay and next date
While dictating the order in open court, Justice Banerjee noted that the Sessions Court recorded the State’s submissions and cited the Supreme Court ruling in Parvinder Singh. Nevertheless, the order did not set out clear reasons. It also did not reflect the applicability of that precedent while granting the stay.
Accordingly, the High Court issued notice. It ordered: “Since there is no clear reflection of applicability… there shall be a stay on the order of the Sessions Court.”
The matter will be heard next on March 6. The Court also indicated that it may allow the parties to move an application seeking clarity on the remand aspect.
