1994 (7) TMI 378 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Unusual observations in the rejection of the bail application.
2. Competence of a second judge to entertain a subsequent bail application.
3. Judicial discipline and placement of successive bail applications before the same judge.
4. Determination of judicial power by the Chief Justice.
5. Principles guiding the grant of bail.
6. Consideration of co-accused being granted bail.
7. Prosecution's stance on the bail application.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Unusual Observations in the Rejection of the Bail Application:
The learned Single Judge's rejection of the bail application with the observation that "the petitioner is bound to remain in custody till the final disposal of the trial" was deemed improper. Such a statement was found to be against the accused's right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the accused retains the right to move for bail at any stage, as per section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for bail applications to be reconsidered even after initial rejection.

2. Competence of a Second Judge to Entertain a Subsequent Bail Application:
The second judge, who entertained the subsequent bail application, referred the matter to a two-Judge Bench due to the earlier judge's unusual observations. The Court clarified that the second judge was competent to hear the bail application despite the earlier application's rejection by a different judge. The Court noted that judicial power is derived from the Chief Justice's determination, and the second judge was within his rights to entertain the application.

3. Judicial Discipline and Placement of Successive Bail Applications Before the Same Judge:
The Court addressed the impression that successive bail applications should be placed before the same judge to avoid conflicting orders, as observed in Supreme Court cases Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao. However, the Court expressed doubts about this rigid practice, especially in a busy High Court. It emphasized that while placing applications before the same judge is advisable, it is not mandatory, and failure to do so does not invalidate the subsequent judge's order.

4. Determination of Judicial Power by the Chief Justice:
The Court reiterated that a judge's power to hear cases is solely derived from the Chief Justice's determination. This principle ensures that no judge can hear matters outside their allotted jurisdiction. The Court referenced the decision in Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal to support this view, emphasizing that the Chief Justice's determination is the source of judicial power.

5. Principles Guiding the Grant of Bail:
The Court highlighted the principles guiding the grant of bail, noting that the tendency is to grant bail unless there is a reasonable likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence. The Court cited Krishna Iyer, J.'s observations in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and The State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, emphasizing that "bail, not jail" is the basic rule unless specific circumstances suggest otherwise.

6. Consideration of Co-accused Being Granted Bail:
The Court considered that the other two accused persons had already been released on bail. While not a strict rule, the Court noted that if co-accused are equally placed, there may be no good reason to deny bail to one accused when others have been granted bail. The Court referenced Chief Justice Harries' view in Kamla Pandey v. The King, supporting this approach.

7. Prosecution's Stance on the Bail Application:
Initially, the State opposed the bail application, but later, the learned Counsel for the State submitted no objection to the grant of bail. The Court noted that while it considers the prosecution's stance, it must independently assess the merits of the case when deciding on bail.

Conclusion:
The Court granted bail to the accused-applicant, emphasizing the need to balance the interest of society in prosecuting offenses with the rights and interests of the accused. The decision underscored the principles of personal liberty, judicial competence, and the proper exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters.