Allahabad High Court
Udai Pratap Singh (Minor-B.C.) vs State Of U.P.& Another on 8 January, 2013
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 26 Case :- BAIL No. - 101 of 2013 Petitioner :- Udai Pratap Singh (Minor-B.C.) Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Another Petitioner Counsel :- Pradeep Kumar Singh Bisen Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
1. Learned counsel has pointed out that this court vide order dated 16.4.2012 while dealing with Case Bail No.1391 of 2012 denied bail to the applicant, considering serious nature of offence as also criminal history of the applicant. Bail has been allowed by Sri P.N. Mishra, Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, vide order dated 13.12.2012. It has also been pointed out that criminal history of the applicant was one of the reasons for denying bail to the applicant, which has not been considered by the lower court while granting bail.
2. Issue notice to respondent no.2 through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 1987(2) SCC, Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, has considered the longstanding convention and judicial discipline required to be maintained at the court level. It has been held that subsequent bail application should be placed before the same Judge, who may have passed earlier orders. The following has been stated in para 5 (relevant portion):
"Longstanding convention and judicial discipline required that respondent's bail application should have been placed before Justice Kamleshwar Nath, who had passed earlier orders, who was available as Vacation Judge. The convention that subsequent bail application should be placed before the same Judge, who may have passed earlier orders has its roots in principle. It prevents abuse of process of court inasmuch as an impression is not created that a litigant is shunning or selecting a court depending on whether the court is to his liking or not, and is encouraged to file successive applications without any new factor having cropped up. If successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different judges, there3 would be conflicting orders and a litigant would be pestering every judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the credibility of the court and the confidence of the other side being put in issue and there would be wastage of courts' time. Judicial discipline requires that such matters must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available for orders."
4. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are in context of subsequent bail applications filed in the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 1994(2) SCC 8, Bimla Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar and others, in para 2 has held thus:
"..... but the disturbing feature of the case is that though two successive applications of the accused for grant of bail were rejected by the High Court, the learned Magistrate granted provisional bail. The course adopted by the learned Magistrate is not only contrary to the settled principles of Judicial Discipline and propriety, but also contrary to the statutory provisions. (In this connection, see Shahzad Hasan Khan's case). The manner in which the learned Magistrate dealt with the case, can give rise to the apprehensions, which were expressed by the complainant in her complaint, which was treated by this court as a writ petition and is being dealt with as such. In the course that we are adopting, we would not like to comment upon the manner in which the learned Magistrate dealt with the case any more at this stage. We, in the facts and circumstances, stated above, direct that a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court for taking such action on the administrative side as may be deemed fit by him."
5. In the case in hand, this court while giving reasons including the longstanding criminal history of the applicant, denied bail to respondent no.2. Despite the fact that High Court's order was brought to the notice of the lower court, bail has been granted to the respondent no.2.
6. In view of what has been noted above, I find that comments of the Presiding Officer, who granted bail vide order dated 13.12.2012 need to be called.
7. List on 28.1.2013.
8. The Presiding Officer, namely Sri P.N. Mishra, Addl. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, who granted bail to respondent no.2, is directed to send his comments to this court, before the next date of listing.
9. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned presiding officer through the District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, forthwith.
10. In case respondent no.2 has not been released on bail till date, operation of order dated 13.12.2012 shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 8.1.2013 A.Nigam