In CRL.M.C. 2885/2022-DEL HC- Delhi HC expresses concern over trend of entertaining bail applications by some subordinate courts despite pendency of such applications before higher courts, says enquiry of pending applications must be made to avoid miscarriage of justice Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta [04-07-2022]

Read Order:Shiv Lingam v. The State And Anr

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, July 6, 2022: In order to ensure that doctrine of judicial discipline and propriety is upheld, the Delhi High Court has expressely stated that the trial court shall make an endevour to ascertain from the petitioner/accused concerned regarding the pendency of any other bail application before the higher forum or rejection of any earlier bail application, before considering the bail application in accordance with law. 

Observing the disturbing trend of entertaining the bail applications pending before the Higher Courts, the Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said, “The subordinate courts are bound by the judicial discipline and propriety, having regard to the hierarchal system of the courts. Further, the concerned courts need to give due consideration, if the bail application preferred by accused already stands rejected by the higher courts on merits.”

The petitioner/accused in the present case had committed trespass in the house of the complainant during her absence while they had gone to Gujarat due to Covid-19 in June, 2020. Further, the petitioner claimed possession on the strength of false and fabricated documents.The petitioner was arrested in 2021 after ascertaining the falsification of the aforesaid documents and had also been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 448/451/420/468/467/471/34 IPC. The present petition had been preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the bail granted to the petitioner had been cancelled. 

According to the Bench, the Additional Sessions Judge while cancelling the bail rightly took into account the deliberate concealment of the pendency of bail application before the Sessions Court as well as the factum of rejection of earlier bail applications of the petitioner. It was also observed that since the petitioner had been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable with life imprisonment for fabrication of valuable securities which is punishable with life imprisonment, the Court of ACMM was required to be cautious at the time of granting bail in terms of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT Delhi. 

As the petitioner’s counsel requested for permission to withdraw the present petition, the Bench permitted the same. The High Court also sternly remarked that the consideration of bail application by subordinate court despite pendency of an application with the higher court or without consideration of grounds of rejection of earlier application by higher courts, may be an utter disregard to judicial discipline.