'Insubordination': Bombay High Court Criticises Additional Sessions Judge For Violating HC Order While Granting Bail To Murder Accused

The Bombay High Court recently criticized an Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad citing insubordination and judicial impropriety while dealing with a bail application of a murder accused.

Justice RM Joshi of the Aurangabad Bench observed that the Judge entertained and allowed the bail application of the accused despite being aware of previous High Court order granting the accused liberty to approach the High Court, and not the trial court, for bail.

“The trial Courts are expected to maintain judicial propriety and ensure that there is no insubordination of Higher Court in any manner. The Lawyers and Public Prosecutors being officers of the Court also share equal responsibility to be honest and fair to the Courts and in no case involve themselves in suppression of facts before any Court of law”, the court observed.

The court dismissed a writ petition by one Ramchandra Maruti Yedage challenging the District Judge’s refusal to accept his surety.

The petitioner is on trial for murder under section 302 of the IPC. In an order dated May 5, 2022, the High Court rejected his bail application but granted him liberty to approach the High Court again if the trial did not conclude within eight months. However, he approached the Additional Sessions Judge who granted him bail on May 29, 2023. Yedage filed the present petition when the District Judge refused to accept his surety.

The High Court found that the petitioner moved a fresh bail application suppressing the fact that the High Court had granted him the liberty to approach only the High Court for bail, and not the trial court. The High Court found this action to be a case of insubordination and fraud upon the court. The prosecution also failed to disclose this fact in its response, indicating suppression of facts by both sides, the High Court noted.

“Liberty was granted to the Petitioner to approach this Court in the event trial does not get over within period of eight months and no discretion was left with the learned trial Court to grant bail to the Petitioner even if the trial does not get over within the stipulated period”, the High Court noted.

The High Court observed that the Additional Sessions Judge knew about its previous order in the bail application of the accused but overlooked the directions. “The learned Additional Sessions Judge had gone through the order passed by this Court on 05.05.2022 but learned Judge has completely overlooked direction that liberty was not given to move application for bail before the trial Court but it was only to be entertained by High Court”, the court said.

The High Court stated that "judicial conduct is the very fiber on which the fabric of confidence of people on any justice delivery system largely depends." To ensure faith in the judicial system, the High Court emphasized the need for transparency and discipline in the dispensation of justice.

Taking suo moto cognizance of the matter, the High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and set aside the order dated May 29, 2023. The High Court also dismissed the writ petition.

The High Court appreciated the AS Shende, District and Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, for being “alert and vigilant”.

“She instead of giving undue importance to procedure rightly prioritized prevention of abuse of process of law over technicalities. This act deserves appreciation, as without such positive step, the order in question would certainly have gone unnoticed…any order obtained by fraud is nullity and hence, learned Sessions Judge was not under legal obligation to accept the surety in pursuant to the order passed, which is apparently demonstrated judicial indiscipline and fraud played by party upon Court”, the court said.

The High Court ordered that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side and forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary, for appropriate action within their jurisdiction.

 Advocate AS More represented the Petitioner while APP GL Deshpande represented the State.

Case No. – Criminal Writ Petition No. 775 of 2023

Case Title – Ramchandra Maruti Yedage v. State of Maharashtra