SC Requests CJ Of Jharkhand HC To Probe Removal Of Part Of The Bail Order From Court’s Site [Read Petition & Order]

The Supreme Court bench of Justices S.A.Bobde and L.Nageswara Rao, on November 8, requested the Chief Justice of Jharkhand high court to conduct an enquiry or to have it conducted by a suitable independent officer, into two orders of denial of bail to two political prisoners, husband and wife, and determine how these orders were issued, uploaded on the website, and removed partly later.

Nirmala Devi and her husband, Yogendra Sao @ Yogendra Saw, belong to the opposition Congress in Jharkhand.  Sao was a minister and his wife, Nirmala Devi is a sitting MLA.   Both were granted bail by the high court on December 13, 2016.  However, both surrendered before the trial court, following fresh issue of the order of arrest in connection with an incident of agitation and commission of offences under the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Barkagaon P.S., Hazaribagh, and cancellation of their bail.  So, they moved fresh bail applications before the high court.

The prosecution alleged that Sao and Nirmala Devi were leading some miscreants to restrain the mining works being done by the NTPC and both the accused tried  to enter the mining area in the night of September 15-16, 2016 with their associates, but were stopped by the administration.

The State of Jharkhand claimed that due to her protests, the entire developmental work and progress of NTPC project is at standstill and work is being hampered, and opposed their bail on the plea that she and the co-accused would tamper with the evidence and may influence the witnesses.

Nirmala Devi submitted that being local MLA, she was supporting peaceful Dharna and protest of the local people whose lands had been acquired and were not properly compensated in lieu thereof, and made to be displaced at the mercy of nature.  She submitted that the people of the area were on peaceful agitation for bringing to the notice of administration and NTPC their genuine grievance but they had been subjected to police atrocities.  She claimed that the action taken against her was on account of political vendetta.

Justice Dr.S.N.Pathak, who heard the case, denied Nirmala Devi and her husband, Sao, bail, on August 11, in B.A. No.4706 of 2017 and in B.A. No.5019 of 2017 respectively.

When their SLPs were heard by the Supreme Court, the bench found that the high court orders were in two parts. In the case of Nirmala Devi, the first part ended at page 4, rejecting her prayer for bail.  The second part, on pages 5 and 6, also ended in rejection of her bail after further discussion.

In the case of Sao, the first part of the order ends on page 4, wherein his prayer for bail is rejected.  The second part of the order, in pages 5 and 6, contradicts the first part, and accepts his bail application, and releases him on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50000.

The appellants’ counsel, Vivek K.Tankha, told the Supreme Court bench that the second part of both orders were initially uploaded on the website of the high  court but subsequently removed and are not visible on the website now.

The bench, therefore, observed in its order: “We consider this to be a serious matter and having a tendency to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”

The bench thereafter requested the CJ of the high court to submit his probe report in a sealed cover within four weeks.  The certified copies of the orders produced by Tankha, were also directed to be kept in a sealed cover, till the next date of hearing, that is, December 13.