Addl Sessions Judge Treats Regular Bail Plea As Anticipatory Bail Plea: Punjab & Haryana High Court Calls It 'Serious' Issue

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently called into question a bail order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot, treating a regular bail petition as an anticipatory bail petition, even when the accused had been in the custody at the time of filing the bail plea.

Calling it a matter of 'serious concern', the Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri also sent the case file to the concerned Administrative Judge of District Faridkot for information and further necessary action, if so required, in accordance with the law.

The facts in brief

Essentially, the Court was dealing with the regular bail plea of one Sukhchain Singh @ Chaini in a case against him under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

He had been in custody from March 18, 2021, and since his regular bail plea (treating it to be an anticipatory bail plea) had been dismissed by the lower Court (the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot), therefore, he had moved the High Court

However, during the course of the hearing in the matter, the High Court noted that the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot had treated his regular bail plea as an anticipatory bail plea and therefore, the Court, on January 7, 2022, directed the District & Sessions Judge, Faridkot to file a report in this regard.

Filing a report before the Court, it was submitted by the  District & Sessions Judge, Faridkot that the regular bail of the petitioner was listed before Harbans Singh Lekhi, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot for disposal, wherein regular bail was sought.

The report further stated that it was specifically mentioned in the plea that the accused is in judicial custody, however, the report added, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot dismissed the same while considering it to be a plea filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The report also contained an explanation in this regard, wherein the concerned Judge had stated that due to the rush of work the mistake had occurred and he also assured that such mistakes wouldn't happen in the future.

However, at the concluding part of the report, the District & Sessions Judge, Faridkot submitted that the comments submitted by the Officer does not contain any legally justifiable reason in passing the order n question.

Against this backdrop, the High Court, perused the said order and noted that it raised serious concern and therefore, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the Administrative Judge of District Faridkot for information and further necessary action.

It may be noted that observing that no recovery is to be affected from the petitioner and that he wouldn't be able to influence any witness or may tamper with the evidence or may flee from justice if released on bail, the High Court has granted him bail in the matter.

Case title - Sukhchain Singh @ Chaini v. State of Punjab
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (P&H) 7

Click Here To Read/Download Order