1989 (9) TMI 403 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the bail granted to the respondent.
2. Consideration of medical grounds for bail.
3. Judicial propriety and discipline in passing orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Bail Granted to the Respondent:
The respondent, a retired Naval Officer, was apprehended at Bombay International Airport with highly sensitive documents marked secret/confidential, leading to charges under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. His successive bail applications were rejected by the High Court, including a notable rejection by Puranik, J. on 6th June 1989. Despite this, Suresh, J. granted bail on 8th June 1989, which was described by Shetty, J. as "a bit out of the ordinary." The Supreme Court noted that the impugned order was passed without any substantial change in the fact-situation and effectively overruled the earlier decision without justification. The Court emphasized that judicial discipline, propriety, and comity demanded that such an order should not have been passed in the absence of new facts or changed circumstances.

2. Consideration of Medical Grounds for Bail:
The respondent argued for bail on medical grounds, citing a spinal disorder and the need for yogic exercises under expert guidance. Initially, he was admitted to J.J. Hospital and later shifted to G.T. Hospital, where he showed considerable improvement. Despite medical certificates indicating his fitness to attend court, the respondent continued to file applications for bail on medical grounds, which were rejected. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent's conduct in filing successive applications suggested an attempt to keep the question of bail alive. The Court found no substantial change in the respondent's medical condition that would justify the grant of bail, especially given the earlier rejections.

3. Judicial Propriety and Discipline in Passing Orders:
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of judicial propriety and discipline, noting that the impugned order by Suresh, J. effectively overruled the earlier decision by Puranik, J. without any substantial change in circumstances. The Court emphasized that such actions could create an impression of forum shopping and abuse of the judicial process. The proper course would have been to place the matter before the same judge who disposed of the earlier applications to ensure consistency and prevent abuse. The Court referred to its observations in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan to support this view.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that there was no justification for the impugned order granting bail to the respondent. It emphasized the need for judicial discipline and consistency in handling successive bail applications. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order dated 8th June 1989 granting bail to the respondent was set aside.