Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. We have heard Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Ms. Pinki Anand, learned ASG for the State of NCT of Delhi and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, the 2nd respondent.

7. On a perusal of the order passed by the High Court, we find that it has felt disturbed that the second application under Section 438 CrPC was allowed by another Additional Sessions Judge who had not dealt with the first application. It has opined that the Second Judge could not have entertained the bail application especially when the earlier Judge was available. To elaborate, the Additional Sessions Judge who has dealt with the matter on the first occasion, had neither been transferred from the said court, nor had he become incapacitated to come to court nor was he absent for a considerable length of time. As it appears, the High Court has taken exception to the fact that the application was moved when the 2 nd Judge was allotted the roaster to deal with the application under Section 438 CrPC.

12

ITEM NO.1-A                     COURT NO.6                    SECTION II

                S U P R E M E C O U R T O F            I N D I A
                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                    Criminal Appeal     No(s).2335/2014

JAGMOHAN BAHL AND ANR                                         Appellant(s)

                                      VERSUS

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR                                  Respondent(s)