'Peculiar and Unusual': Punjab and Haryana High Court Seeks Explanation For Petitioner Being Unaware About Grant Of Bail By Magistrate

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday expressed shock while adjudicating upon a case wherein a Sessions Court had rejected the bail plea moved by the petitioner who was unaware that he had already been granted bail by the concerned Magistrate.

In the concerned case, the petitioner had sought regular bail before the Sessions Judge, Panchkula. However when the Sessions Court declined to grant him bail, the instant petition was filed before the High Court. Consequently, the petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the bail plea filed before the High Court on the ground that he had no knowledge that he had already been granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula.

Terming the unfortunate turn of events as 'peculiar and unusual', Justice H.S Madaan observed,

"It is very strange that neither petitioner/accused nor his counsel would come to know about the order granting regular bail to the petitioner/accused and rather learned Sessions Judge, Panchkula was approached by way of filing application for regular bail. It is very surprising that without verifying and going through the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, learned Sessions Judge, Panchkula proceeded to dispose of the application for regular bail when it should not have been done as bail had already been granted to the petitioner by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula."

The Court noted that such a situation could have been avoided if the petitioner's counsel or the Public Prosecutor had brought to the attention of the Sessions Court that bail had already been granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Emphasising on the duty of police authorities to assist the Court properly, the High Court opined that the prosecution in its reply to the bail application filed before the Sessions Court should have intimated about the grant of bail.

Further, Justice Madaan observed that due to the failure in efficient discharge of duties by the petitioner's counsel and the prosecution, precious time of the petitioner as well as the judiciary had been wasted.

"In the process, precious time of learned Sessions Judge, Panchkula and this Court has been wasted and on his part the petitioner himself has remained behind bars for a period of more than 1 year and 4 months on account of non-functioning of Courts etc", the Court opined.

Accordingly, the Court called for an explanation from the concerned Sessions Judge. The Director, Prosecution and the DGP, Haryana were also ordered to find out the persons responsible for such lapse so that necessary action could be initiated against them. The Court further added that the explanations sought by the Court are to be furnished by August 12.

Thus, the Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw his bail plea.

Case Title: Nishant @ Nishu v. State of Haryana

Click Here To Download/Read Order