Allahabad High Court
Naval Saini vs State Of U.P. on 28 October, 2013
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38472 of 2013
Applicant :- Naval Saini
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Heard Shri Rahul Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and also learned counsel for first informant who has filed his Parcha today, which is taken on record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed in a case under Section 420 IPC with a prayer to prepone the hearing of the bail application no.2304 of 2013 in re:-State vs. Naval Saini arising out of Case Crime No.510 of 2013 at P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura and also to direct the court concerned to enlarge the applicant on interim bail meanwhile, and thus to ensure the law laid down in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and also the Full Bench decision in the case of Amarawati and others Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290.
The grievance of the applicant emanates from the fact that though the bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant on 18.10.2013 but the hearing of the bail application has been fixed to take place on 16.11.2013, i.e. a month after filing of the same.
The learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge seems to have adopted it as a matter of practice to fix such inordinately late dates on bail applications. In this regard, there is a specific averment made to the same effect in para 7 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant. It has also been averred in para 8 of the affidavit that in Criminal Misc. Application No. 36127 of 2013, (Ashok vs. State of U.P. & ors), with regard to another case of District Mathura, this Court had the occasion to express its disquiet and concern about the attitude of the same learned Judge for fixing the hearing of the bail application after an unjustifiably long period of time. It has been contended that in the aforesaid case also, the learned Judge had fixed up the hearing of the bail application after a period of about a month. The observations made by this Court while disposing of the aforesaid Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have also been relied upon by the counsel and the same have been placed before the court which are to the following effect:-
"I do not see any justification for such a prolix period of time after which the hearing has been fixed and that too to decide the bail application. The concerned Court is directed to fix up an early date and expedite the hearing of the bail. To say the least, such kind of callous disregard to the Full Bench decision of this Court leaves much to be desired."
The applicant's counsel contends that the judicial discountenance expressed by this Court in the aforesaid case has scarcely produced any effect upon the learned Judge who seems adamant not to mend his ways.
I have also heard the learned AGA and perused the record.
The law regarding the hearing of the bail applications on the same day and the power to release the accused on an interim bail, both have been expatiated upon comprehensively in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Amarawati and others Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290. A later decision of the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) had further reiterated the view taken in Amarawati's case.
The need and desirability of hearing the bail applications on the same day is not difficult to gauge from the observations made by the Full Bench when it held that if on the application made under section 437 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate feels constrained to post-pone the hearing of the bail application, it should release the applicant on interim bail and if there are circumstances which impell the court not to adopt such a course, the court shall record its reason for its refusal to release the applicant on interim bail.
The expression of need to record reason is an eloquent expression to vindicate the desirability of same day hearing on bail applications and lays emphasis on the point that the same shall not be postponed as a matter of course or for no sound reasons. Thereafter, the power and discretion of the sessions court to hear the bail application on the same day has also been discussed and recognised by the Full Bench.
There cannot be any straight-jacket formula or guideline which this court may issue for the lower Courts as to when a date on a particular bail application should be fixed and how much opportunity is to be afforded to the State to file its rebuttal in a particular case. It all depends upon the attending circumstances of each case.
It is also true that ordinarily as a matter of judicial policy, this court is loath to interfere in the matters of lower Court's discretion. But the same policy emanates from an implicit faith which this court has in the officers of sub-ordinate judiciary and it is hoped that they shall not betray the trust reposed in them and shall always ensure that the discretion vested in them should be exercised judiciously and with circumspection.
It does not need much elaboration or argument to demonstrate that fixing up the very first hearing on the bail application almost after one month in the present case is by no standards a justifiable exercise of judicial discretion and the injudiciousness of the act is apparent and writ large on the face of record. This court is pained to express its displeasure on the same specially in the background of the fact that the same learned Judge indulged in the same kind of judicial indiscretion earlier also when this court was constrained to observe as has been quoted above.
This Court exercises utmost judicial restraint in using strong language, lest the same may cast an aspersion and be counted as a stricture which may adversely affect the career of the judicial officer. Without saying anything more, it is hoped that the Full Bench decision of Amarawati's case (Supra), and also the Apex Court decision of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (Supra) shall be followed in letter and spirit by the court concerned as they are binding precedents.
It is also directed that the court concerned shall prepone the hearing of the bail application and fix some early date giving a reasonable, and not an unreasonable, opportunity to the State to submit its rebuttal, and then, shall decide it in accordance with law.
It is very much desired that the court concerned shall not furnish further occasions which might impell this Court to take a more serious view of the matter. Judicial intransigence has seldom been counted as virtue of a Judge.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 28.10.2013
Pk
