The Delhi High Court on Monday granted interim relief to Uday Bhanu Chib, President of the Indian Youth Congress, staying a Sessions Court order that had put on hold the bail granted to him by a Magistrate in connection with the shirtless protest at the recent India AI Impact Summit.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the impugned order reflected no application of mind and held that any judicial order impacting personal liberty must disclose reasons. The Court noted that it was prima facie not satisfied with the Sessions Court’s decision.

“Some application of mind has to be there… If there is no application of mind, the order has to be stayed,” the Court remarked during the hearing.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Chib, submitted that the Sessions Court had stayed the Magistrate’s bail order ex parte and without even supplying a copy of the order to the accused.

“An order is passed ex parte and the person continues in custody. This is shocking,” Luthra argued, underscoring the urgency of the matter as one directly affecting personal liberty.

He further contended that the Magistrate had declined police custody and granted bail at the remand stage itself, which was permissible under the Delhi High Court Rules. According to him, the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere at that stage. Luthra also argued that once a bail application is decided on merits, the order ceases to be interlocutory and cannot be revised. He additionally alleged procedural lapses, claiming he was not supplied with the police custody application at the time of production before the Magistrate.

Terming the Sessions Court’s order as “wholly bereft of reasoning,” Luthra read it out in open court. Upon examining the order, Justice Banerjee questioned the prosecution, asking where the reasoning or findings supporting the stay were recorded.

The Court emphasised that when liberty is curtailed by staying a bail order, the court must clearly demonstrate how the precedent relied upon applies to the facts of the case.
“We are all humans. We have to see this from the perspective of liberty,” the judge observed.

Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General DP Singh argued that the investigation was still ongoing and submitted that the order under challenge effectively stayed a remand order, with bail being only consequential. He sought to justify the Sessions Court’s interference by asserting that the Magistrate’s order itself was illegal.

The High Court, however, remained unconvinced.

“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 stated.

While dictating the order in open court, the Bench noted that although the Sessions Court had recorded the State’s submissions and cited a Supreme Court ruling, it failed to reflect any clear reasoning or demonstrate the applicability of the precedent relied upon.

Accordingly, the High Court issued notice and stayed the Sessions Court’s order. The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 6, with the Court indicating that parties may move an appropriate application seeking clarity on the remand aspect