Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 38
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Khet Singh and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 861 of 2021
Decided On : 25-01-2021
For the Appellant :Abhishek Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: A.R. Choudhary, P.P.
The main legal point established is the importance of maintaining parity and judicial discipline in considering bail applications of similarly situated accused persons, and the requirement for subordinate courts to refer to and follow the orders of the higher court in deciding bail applications.
Headnote:
Bail Application - Interpretation of Section 439 Cr.P.C. - The court emphasized the importance of maintaining parity and judicial discipline in considering bail applications of similarly situated accused persons. It held that unless there are distinguishable features or special circumstances, the bail of a subsequently arrested accused on the same footing should not be dismissed when others with similar allegations have been granted bail. The court also stressed that subordinate courts must refer to and follow the orders of the higher court in deciding bail applications.
Fact of the Case:
The bail application was filed for the petitioners who were in custody for offenses under Sections 458, 323, 354, 504, and 509/34 IPC. The co-accused Swaroop Singh had been granted bail by the High Court, but the bail application of the petitioners was rejected by the Sessions Court, which did not refer to the High Court's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sessions Court's rejection of the bail application without considering the High Court's order granting bail to a similarly situated co-accused was a disregard of the higher court's order and resulted in unwarranted bail applications and prolonged custody of the accused.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the bail application by the Sessions Court without considering the High Court's order granting bail to a similarly situated co-accused and the importance of maintaining parity and judicial discipline in bail decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi was that unless there are distinguishable features or special circumstances, the bail of a subsequently arrested accused on the same footing should not be dismissed when others with similar allegations have been granted bail. Subordinate courts must refer to and follow the orders of the higher court in deciding bail applications.
Final Decision: The bail application of the petitioners was accepted, and they were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing the specified bonds.
Key Points: - The case concerns a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offenses under Sections 458, 323, 354, 504, and 509/34 IPC [17000603840001]. - The role attributed to the petitioners and a co-accused, Swaroop Singh, was almost identical, despite the petitioner Kalyan Singh allegedly being armed with a knife, no injury was caused by a sharp weapon [17000603840002]. - The bail application of co-accused Swaroop Singh was initially rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge but later granted by the High Court [17000603840002]. - The bail application of the petitioners was rejected by the same Sessions Court, which failed to refer to the High Court's order granting bail to Swaroop Singh [17000603840003]. - Subordinate courts and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for considering bail applications [17000603840004]. - Parity must be maintained when considering bail applications of similarly situated accused persons, and bail should not be dismissed for a subsequently arrested accused on the same footing if others with similar allegations have been granted bail, unless there are distinguishable features or special circumstances [17000603840004]. - For judicial discipline, subordinate courts must refer to and duly regard orders of the High Court when deciding bail applications of co-accused in the same case [17000603840005]. - The Sessions Court's rejection of the petitioners' bail application without considering the High Court's order for a similarly situated co-accused was a gross disregard of the higher court's order [17000603840006]. - The approach of denying bail to the petitioners when a similarly situated accused was granted bail is deprecated as it disregards the High Court's order, increases the court's docket, and prolongs custody without justification [17000603840007]. - The bail application of the petitioners was accepted, and they were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing specified bonds [17000603840008][17000603840009].
What is the importance of maintaining parity and judicial discipline in considering bail applications of similarly situated accused persons?
What are the requirements for subordinate courts when deciding bail applications in relation to higher court orders?
How should bail applications be decided when a similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail by a higher court?
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Mehta, J.
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in custody in relation to F.I.R. No. 221/2020, Police Station Kotwali, District Barmer, for the offences under Sections 458, 323, 354, 504 and 509/34 IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. On perusal of the impugned order and the FIR, it is apparent that the role attributed to the present petitioners Khet Singh and Kalyan Singh and the co-accused Swaroop Singh is almost identical. Though as per the FIR, the petitioner Kalyan Singh was allegedly armed with a knife but it is apparent from the injury reports of the injured Om Prakash and Thakara Ram that no injury whatsoever was caused to anyone by a sharp weapon. The bail application of the co-accused Swaroop Singh was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer by order dated 05.09.2020 whereupon, he approached this Court by filing Bail Application No.9870/2020, which was accepted vide order dated 07.10.2020.
4. The application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected by the very same Presiding Officer vide order dated 23.12.2020 wherein, reference is given to the order rejecting bail of co-accused Swaroop Singh dated 05.09.2020. In the entire text of the order, the learned Presiding Officer did not refer to the order passed by this Court on the bail application of Swaroop Singh.
5. As per Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Sessions Court as well as the High Court while considering the bail application/s of arrested accused have concurrent jurisdiction. Needless to say that while considering bail applications of similarly situated accused persons, parity has to be maintained and it should be ensured that unless any distinguishable feature or any special circumstance is in existence, the bail of a subsequently arrested accused on same footing should not be dismissed when other/s with similar allegation/s have been extended indulgence of bail.
6. Furthermore, for maintaining judicial discipline it is essential that in cases where this Court has decided bail application/s of some accused in a particular case and the bail application of the co-accused comes up before the Sessions Court/Additional Sessions Court concerned, this Court's order/s must be referred to and duly regarded in the order/s deciding such bail application/s.
7. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer, while rejecting the bail application of the petitioners by order dated 23.12.2020, referred to his own order dated 05.09.2020 whereby, the bail application of Swaroop Singh was rejected. However, the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by this Court whereby, Swaroop Singh whose case stands on the same footing as the petitioners, was admitted to bail was conveniently omitted. This indicates the gross disregard of this Court's order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Barmer.
8. The approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Barmer in denying bail to the petitioners even though similarly situated accused has been granted bail in the very same case is deprecated as such an approach not only tantamounts to a total disregard of this Court's order but also increases this Court's dockets flooding it with unwarranted bail applications and also prolongs the custody of the accused without any justification. It is henceforth expected from all the Subordinate Courts in the State of Rajasthan that where similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail by this Court and the bail application of other accused comes up for consideration, this Court's order/s shall not only be referred to while deciding such bail application/s but shall be followed unless exceptional/distinguishable features exist.
9. With the above observations, the instant bail application deserves to be and is hereby accepted.
10. It is ordered
