Trend Of Mechanical Grant Of Bail 'Disturbing', Punjab & Haryana HC Urges Courts To Uphold Judicial Discipline For Public Confidence

Expressing concern over the "disturbing trend" of trial courts granting bail mechanically, the Punjab & Haryana High Court said the Courts are expected to consistently uphold judicial discipline and propriety to ensure that public confidence is maintained in the judicial process.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "a very disturbing trend is emerging with the trial Courts as they have adopted a practice to grant bails in a mechanical manner, which is a huge cause of concern. The Courts are expected to consistently uphold judicial discipline and propriety to ensure that public confidence is maintained in the judicial process."

The grant or denial of bail cannot be done mechanically and the Courts must satisfy the minimum requirement of assigning a prima facie view borne out from the record while exercising such discretion, as any such order has an impact on the liberty of the accused, the interest of the society and the victim and, proper administration of criminal justice, added the Court.

It further said that the ends of justice are not met only when the accused is granted bail, the victim and the society acting through the State are also entitled to justice. The cause of the victim and society deserves equal aid by the Courts in the discharge of their judicial functions and evolved jurisprudence of bail is integral to socially sensitised administration of justice.

The Court was hearing two petitions, seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused persons in a double murder case.

It was alleged that the accused persons shot firearms, resulting in the death of two individuals and injuries to several others.

While examining the petition, the Court found that the ASJ, Fatehabad who had rejected the bail of a co-accused "surprisingly" granted bail to the main accused.

Perusing the bail order, the Court said, "it is clear that the impugned order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and does not meet the objective standard of reason and justice. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not even recorded his prima facie opinion for grant of bail to respondent No.2 and proceeded to grant bail without considering the nature and gravity of offence or discussing the respective roles of respondent No.2 and the co- accused-Sunil."

However, the Court found that the petitioner was not able to point out any supervening circumstances which would indicate that allowing the accused "to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail, would be unconducive to the trial being conducted fairly."

Adding that in the absence of any supervening circumstances indicating the respondents (accused persons), influencing the witnesses or misusing the concession of bail, post the grant of bail, the Court opined that "it is restrained from cancelling the bail granted to them on 14.08.2018 and 17.10.2108 respectively, due to efflux of time."

Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Appearance: Kanwar Arun Singh, Advocate for Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

Ajit Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 271

Title: Monu v. State of Haryana and another

Click here to read/download the order