E-Paper
Nuh judge grants bail to POs, HC terms it ‘grave judicial indiscipline’
The Punjab and Haryana high court has termed an incident of a judicial officer granting bail to proclaimed offenders as “grave judicial indiscipline” warranting disciplinary action against the officer and sent the matter for consideration by the chief justice
The Punjab and Haryana high court has termed an incident of a judicial officer granting bail to proclaimed offenders as “grave judicial indiscipline” warranting disciplinary action against the officer and sent the matter for consideration by the chief justice.
The HC bench of justice Manoj Bajaj cancelled bail to six persons granted in June 2020 by the judicial officer and ordered that a copy of the order be sent to registrar general for placing it before the chief justice for further orders on the administrative side.
The court was hearing a matter from a Nuh resident who had challenged additional sessions judge, Nuh’s order of granting anticipatory protection to these persons who were declared proclaimed offenders in July 2019 in a 2013 FIR.
Upon his complaint, an FIR was registered in November 2013 for unnatural sexual offences under Nagina police station, Mewat against these persons. After FIR, police filed a cancellation report to which the petitioner filed a protest petition.
In May 2017, a court summoned these persons for alleged offences of kidnap on his plea. But the trial court found no evidence of unnatural sexual act. The petitioner again preferred appeal on deletion of this offence, which was accepted by the sessions judge in August 2017 and three of the accused were summoned under this offence.
Thereafter, during the trial, six accused failed to appear and the court declared them proclaimed offenders in July 2019.
Following this, they had filed for anticipatory bail on two occasions but withdrew it and continued to evade hearings but in the meantime, moved a third plea for anticipatory bail before additional sessions judge, Nuh.
They were given interim protection from arrest in February 2020. The petitioner challenged the order before the HC which was disposed of with a direction to bring these facts before the judicial officer. But in June, the judicial officer confirmed their anticipatory bails.
It was this order he had challenged before the HC arguing that the conduct of the accused persons was completely ignored by judicial officer while accepting their plea.
The HC bench observed that the power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary in nature, thus, the concession cannot be granted in a routine manner, but in exceptional cases only.
While considering such pleas, court is supposed to examine various factors i.e. nature of accusation, role attributed to accused, punishment for the alleged offences, as well as the conduct of the accused applicant etc and after careful analysis, the said discretion is exercised, keeping in mind the sound judicial principles, the bench added.
It added that trial proceedings were much within the knowledge of the accused persons. The judicial officer accepted the prayer without analysing its maintainability or discussing the merits of the case.
It said the June 2020 order makes it absolutely clear that the officer exercised discretion in favour of the accused persons, without dealing with the objections raised by the state counsel on them being proclaimed offenders.
By now it is well settled law that the accused person who has been declared proclaimed person is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, the court said, adding that the judicial officer passed an order in an “illegal and arbitrary manner, and that too after a long delay without even seeking explanation for their continuous absence from the trial proceedings”.
The officer passed order violating the HC order and without examining maintainability or merits of the application, law on the subject and objections on behalf of the prosecution and it amount to “grave judicial indiscipline warranting disciplinary action against the presiding officer”, the bench said, cancelling the bails and forwarding the matter to the chief justice.
