"Bench Hunting" Shakes Faith In Justice System: Kerala High Court Dismisses Third Bail Plea Of NDPS Accused
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that bench hunting by filing different bail applications before different Courts has no legal sanctity and would result in anarchy and shake the faith in the justice delivery system.The petitioner is the third accused in an offence involving possession of contraband in commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. His first bail application was dismissed by the...
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that bench hunting by filing different bail applications before different Courts has no legal sanctity and would result in anarchy and shake the faith in the justice delivery system.
The petitioner is the third accused in an offence involving possession of contraband in commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. His first bail application was dismissed by the High Court and the second bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court.
Justice C S Dias dismissed his third bail application and further directed the Sessions Court not to entertain any further bail applications moved by him in this crime.
“This Court perceives the petitioner's action of shuttling from one court to the other is a deliberate attempt of bench-hunting, which has no legal sanction and no sanctity. If such practices are permitted, they will usher in anarchy and shake the faith in the justice delivery system. The petitioner cannot be inspired by the tenacity of King Bruce and the spider, when it comes to repeatedly filing bail applications before different Courts in violation of the settled principles of law.”
The petitioner submitted that he was innocent of all allegations and no prosecution materials showed his involvement in the alleged crime. He submitted that his earlier bail applications were dismissed on finding his criminal antecedents for involved in crimes in 2013 and 2017. It was argued that previous crimes have no significance and that he has been in jail since July 2023.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the application stating that the accused was forum shopping by hopping from one court to another with bail applications. It was stated that his first bail application was rejected by the High Court on finding prima facie involvement in the crime and on previous criminal antecedents. The accused then approached Sessions Court with a fresh application which was also dismissed based on incriminating materials against him. It was stated that when Sessions Court dismissed his application, he again approached the High Court with this bail application.
The Court relying upon Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and another (1987), Jayaraj A. v. State of Kerala (2009) and Bipin Sunny v. State of Kerala (2023) stated that the subordinate Court should not have entertained the second bail application moved by the accused after his first bail application was dismissed by the High Court. It was stated subsequent bail applications pointing out a change of circumstance have to be filed before the High Court and not before the Sessions Court to maintain judicial discipline unless otherwise permitted by the Superior Court.
It observed that the Apex Court has directed the Courts to ensure that the accused furnishes complete details of crime while moving bail applications. It also stated that an advocate must maintain judicial decorum, and professional ethics and have a duty towards the Court by referring to Jagmohan Bahl v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2014).
The Court rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner that he has to be enlarged on bail due to filing of final report and that previous criminal antecedents have no significance.
The Court stated that there prima facie materials against the petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged crime and that he has criminal antecedents.
The Court thus dismissed his bail application and directed the Sessions Court not to entertain any further bail applications moved by the petitioner in the present crime.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate M R Rajesh
Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Seetha S
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
Case Title: Lijin v State of Kerala
Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 4941 OF 2024