Something is wrong with state of affairs in justice dispensation system, says Bombay HC as murder accused secures bail through suppression of facts

Read order: Shubham Soni vs. State of Maharashtra

LE Staff

Mumbai, July 21, 2021: In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court refused to grant bail to a man accused in a murder case after finding that he had fraudulently obtained bail from the Sessions Court by suppressing material facts.

“The disturbing ease with which the applicant secured bail, by gross suppression, nay, chicanery is reminiscent of the words spoken by Marcellus in Hamlet ‘Something is rotten in the State of Denmark’,” a Bench of Justice Rohit B Deo said while dismissing the bail petition. 

Justice Deo emphasised that “The credibility of the justice dispensation system is the collective responsibility of all the stakeholders; the judges, the bar, the litigants and the common man”. 

“Something is indeed wrong with the state of affairs in the justice dispensation system, its credibility is in peril, and the enemy lurks within,” the Bench said in its order dated July 17.

The High Court also said that “the erosion of the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation system, more often than not, is attributable to stakeholders, who may not be alive to their pious duty and responsibility to ensure that the stream of justice flows unpolluted and unhindered”. 

In the present case, the applicant Shubham Soni, who was arraigned as an accused for committing a brutal murder, moved for bail before Additional Sessions Judge SS Deshpande, but in vain. The bail was refused after minutely scrutinising the material in the charge-sheet and the submissions. 

While refusing bail, the ASJ also recorded that the applicant is a history-sheeter and is facing as many as six prosecutions involving serious offences and that there is overwhelming evidence to link the applicant with the brutal killing and a weapon was also recovered at his instance. 

After two days of the rejection of bail, the applicant filed for second bail before another Sessions Judge VD Ingle, without disclosing the details of the first bail application and its rejection order. 

Judge Ingle granted bail to the applicant, but cancelled it after about two months after the prosecution moved an application for cancellation of bail upon the intervention of the complainant. This order was assailed before the High Court. 

The High Court observed that the note which was attached in the second application before Judge Ingle was “a machiavellian lip service paid to the solemn duty of true and faithful disclosure of the rejection of the first bail application on merits”.

The High Court also said that Judge Ingle may not have realized that she was considering a successive application preferred just two days after the rejection of the first bail application. 

Remarking that the applicant had secured bail by hoodwinking the system and merrily walked out of the prison as a free man, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 which was directed to be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Sub-Committee, Nagpur, within 15 days. 

As regards the contention against strict rules of pleadings and the degree of disclosure, the High Court highlighted that the duty is to make a true and faithful disclosure, and not a half-truth with the intent of subverting the administration of justice.