"Bail Granted For Extraneous Considerations, Deserves Disciplinary Action": P&H HC Raps Judicial Officer For 'Grave Misconduct'
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday admonished a judicial officer for his "grave misconduct" as it noted that he had granted bail to an NDPS Accused on account of extraneous considerations and that the bail order was passed by deliberately ignoring the material on recordOpining that the disciplinary action against the Presiding Officer deserved to be initiated, the Bench of...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday admonished a judicial officer for his "grave misconduct" as it noted that he had granted bail to an NDPS Accused on account of extraneous considerations and that the bail order was passed by deliberately ignoring the material on record
Opining that the disciplinary action against the Presiding Officer deserved to be initiated, the Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj, cancelling the bail of the accused, forwarded the copy of the order to the Chief Justice for further orders on the administrative side.
Case in hand
Essentially, one Ajay Kumar alias Kala moved the High Court seeking bail in a case registered against him under Sections 20, 25, 27, 61 N.D.P.S.Act, 1985, Section 25 Arms Act, 1959, Section 307 IPC, 1860 and Section 420 IPC.
He placed the bail order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani in favour of a co-accused, Pardeep, to set up an additional ground of parity for bail, as the prosecution had set up a common case against both the accused persons.
In its order, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani had granted regular bail to co-accused Pardeep on the ground that neither he was arrested from the Tempo Traveller (from where around 320 KG of Ganja was allegedly recovered), nor the FSL report relating to alleged contraband had been received.
Therefore, in the order, the Lower court had held the co-accused to be entitled to the concession of bail as it had noted that not only he had clean antecedents, but the alleged supplier, namely, Singdi Nanaji @ Nani also did not name the said accused.
Court's observations
Analysing the circumstances of the case, the Court noted that the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, had, in an arbitrary manner, twisted the facts in order to extend the benefit of regular bail to accused Pardeep.
"The observation (in the bail order) that accused Pardeep was not arrested from the Tempo Traveller gives an impression that he was not present at the spot, whereas as per prosecution, the driver had tried to escape in a violent manner in order to avoid arrest and seizure of contraband."
Further, the Court also noted that even though the FSL report was filed on June 3, 2021 before the trial court, but it was not referred to at all by the Presiding Officer, who extended the bail with the observation that the report is yet to be filed.
Significantly, the same judge had not granted bail to the present applicant (Ajay) and had dismissed his bail plea on July, 14 2021 by taking into account the gravity and seriousness of the offence in respect of both the accused (Ajay and co-accused, Pradip).
He had also stressed that the accused/present bail applicant (Ajay) can't be allowed to take the benefit of his clean antecedents to allow his bail plea and had held that the argument that he is having clean antecedents was of no consequence.
However, strangely, the same judge, on November 1, granted bail to the Co-accused, Pardip by taking into account his clean antecedents.
These two bail orders were found to be opposite to each other, despite the fact that the prosecution had set out the same case against both the Accused, i.e., Pradip, who was granted bail by the lower court) and Ajay (Present applicant, who was denied bail by the lower court).
Against this backdrop, the Court was of the prima-facie opining that the order dated 01.11.2021 had been passed for extraneous considerations by the pressing officer and therefore, the order warranted exercise of jurisdiction under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail.
"A reading of the above two orders dated 14.07.2021 and 01.11.2021 makes it absolutely clear that the Presiding Officer extended the concession of regular bail to accused Pardeep by deliberately ignoring the material on record, and exercised the discretion in favour of accused by violating the sound judicial principles and this amounts to grave misconduct on his part," the Court observed.
Resultantly, the regular bail granted to accused Pardeep by the trial court vide order dated 01.11.2021 in the subject FIR ws cancelled and he was directed to surrender forthwith before the trial court, the present petitioner withdrew the bail plea.
Case title - Ajay Kumar alias Kala v. State of Haryana
Read Order