Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Kishan Chand - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Short Term Bail Application No. 2 of 2023
Decided On : 19-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Tapan Singh, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate, Sonika Khulbe, Advocate

Two bail applications in two courts simultaneously are not maintainable.

Headnote:
Bail Application - Short Term Bail - The court rejected the short term bail application on the grounds that two bail applications in two courts simultaneously are not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:

Applicant Kishan Chand is in judicial custody in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. He moved a bail application in the court of competent jurisdiction, which is listed for hearing on 27.01.2023. The applicant approached the Court for a short term bail application.
Finding of the Court:

The Court questioned the maintainability of the short term bail application as the regular bail application of the applicant was pending in another court. The Court rejected the short term bail application, emphasizing that two bail applications in two courts simultaneously are not maintainable.
Issues: The issue of the maintainability of the short term bail application in light of the pending regular bail application and the urgency of the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that urgent matters like short term bail on health grounds should be brought to the notice of the concerned Sessions Judge for timely consideration. However, the Court held that two bail applications in two courts simultaneously are not maintainable.
Final Decision: The short term bail application was rejected, and a copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the learned counsel for the applicant.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Kishan Chand is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.6 of 2022, under Section 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 IPC and Sections 13(1)(A) and Sections 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended Act, 2018), Vigilance Establishment Sector Haldwani, District Nainital. He moved a bail application in the court of competent jurisdiction, which is listed for hearing on 27.01.2023. Now, the applicant has approached this Court for short term bail application.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.

3. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the applicant, as to why the short term bail has not been sought from the court, where the regular bail application of the applicant is pending? How two bail applications simultaneously in two courts are maintainable? There is no reply to it.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, the applicant has moved a short term bail application in the court below on 17.01.2023, but no order has been passed on the application because it was told that the Presiding Officer of the court is on vacation.

5. These are urgent matters. This fact should be brought into the notice of the concerned Sessions Judge, who may make arrangements, so that the urgent applications like short term bail on health ground may be heard. But, two bail applications in two courts simultaneously are not maintainable. With these observations, the short term bail application is rejected.

6. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the applicant today itself, on payment of usual charges.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document