IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Lower courts are not akin to constitutional courts – While deciding application under Section 439 of Code, Courts are bound to decide it within four corners of Statute.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.—

CRL.M.A. 17777/2021 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2802/2021

1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner u/s 482 of Cr.P.C in FIR no. 654/2021 registered at Police Station Ranhola for offence punishable u/s 498-A, 304-B of IPC.

2. Learned Counsel for Petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 01.11.21 passed by the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-03, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case bearing FIR No.654/2021 Police Station Ranhola under sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Heard.

4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Learned APP for State.

5. State is directed to the file Status Report and counter-affidavit/objections before the next date of hearing.

CRL.M.A. 17776/2021

1. The instant Interim Application prays for ad-interim ex-parte order staying the impugned order dated 01.11.21 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and to direct the Court of Additional Sessions Judge to decide the bail application on its own merit on 17.11.2021.

2. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge has no inherent powers and cannot delve into the realm of investigation, while sitting in bail jurisdiction.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, perused the entire material on the record and contentions made in the petition.

4. In the instant case, the Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order has made observations with regard to the conduct of investigating officer and lapses in the investigation.

5. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is pertinent to peruse the position of law laid down in this context.

6. Section 6 in Chapter 1, part H (titled ‘The Judgment’) of the Delhi High Court Rules for “Practice in the Trial of Criminal Cases” states as follows:-

“6. Criticism on the conduct of Police and other officers—It is undesirable for Courts to make remarks censuring the action of police Officers unless such remarks are strictly relevant of the case. It is to be observed that the Police have great difficulties to contend with in this country, chiefly because they receive little sympathy or assistance from the people in their efforts to detect crime. Nothing can be more disheartening to them than to find that, when they have worked up a case, they are regarded with distrust by the Courts; that the smallest irregularity is magnified into a grave misconduct and that every allegation of ill-usage is readily accepted as true. That such allegations may sometimes be true it is impossible to deny but on a closer scrutiny they are generally found to be far more often false. There should not be an over-alacrity on the part of Judicial Officers to believe anything and every thing against the police; but if it be proved that the police have manufactured evidence by extorting confessions or tutoring witnesses they can hardly be too severely punished. Whenever a Magistrate finds it necessary to make any criticism on the work and conduct of any Government servant, he should send a copy of his judgment to the District Magistrate who will forward a copy of it to the Registrar, High Court, accompanied by a covering letter giving reference to the Home Secretary’s circular Letter No. 920-J-36/14753, dated the 15th April, 1936.”

7. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Anr. (2011) 12 SCC 689, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

“13. The cardinal principle of the administration of justice requires for proper freedom and independence of Judges and such independence must be maintained and Judges must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fairly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this Court. However, it is also equally important that in expressing their opinions the Judges must be guided by consideration of justice, f