HC expresses concern over courts entertaining bail pleas despite pendency before higher courts

The Delhi High Court has expressed its concern over a "disturbing trend" of some trial courts entertaining bail applications in spite of the pendency of such pleas before the higher courts and said that the subordinate courts are bound by judicial discipline and propriety concerning the hierarchical system of courts.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta noted that at times, orders are also passed mechanically by the trial courts in the absence of any substantial change in circumstances and in complete disregard to the observations or the factors which weighed with the higher court to decline the relief of bail.

The judge thus ordered that the trial courts shall make an endeavour to ascertain from the accused concerned the pendency of any other bail application before the higher forum or rejection of any earlier bail application before considering the bail application in accordance with the law, saying that this would ensure that the doctrine of judicial discipline and propriety is upheld and avoid any bench hunting, The court observed that although an accused whose bail plea has been once rejected, is not precluded from filing subsequent pleas in case of change in circumstance or factual position, the concerned court has to give due consideration when the rejection is on merits and has the duty to record the fresh grounds if persuaded it to take a different view.

"It may be observed that a disturbing trend of entertaining the bail applications, by some of the subordinate courts, despite the pendency of bail application for consideration before the higher courts has been noticed. Also, at times, the orders are mechanically passed without any substantial change of circumstances and in complete disregard to the observations or the factors which weighed with the higher court in declining the bail. The subordinate courts are bound by the judicial discipline and propriety, having regard to the hierarchical system of the courts," said the court in its order dated July 4.

The court stated that judicial wisdom forecasts a duty on the concerned court to make enquiries as to pending bail applications or the rejection of any bail application before the higher court to avoid any miscarriage of justice.

It added that the consideration of bail application by the subordinate court in spite of the pendency of the same relief before the higher court or without consideration of grounds of rejection of the earlier application by higher courts "may be an utter disregard to judicial discipline".

"As such, judicial wisdom forecasts a duty on the concerned court to make enquiry as to pending bail application, if any, with courts in hierarchy or rejection of any bail application by a higher court, to avoid any miscarriage of justice," the court said.

"It is directed that the trial courts shall make an endeavour to ascertain from the petitioner/accused concerned regarding the pendency of any other bail application before the higher forum or rejection of any earlier bail application, before considering the bail application in accordance with the law. This would ensure that the doctrine of judicial discipline and propriety is upheld and would avoid any bench hunting," it ordered.

The court's observations were made while dealing with a petition by an accused against a sessions court's order cancelling the bail granted to him by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM).

The court noted that the sessions court, while cancelling the bail, rightly took into account the accused's "deliberate concealment" before the ACMM regarding the pendency of his bail application before the learned sessions Court as well as the factum of rejection of earlier bail applications.

The court added that since the petitioner had been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable with life imprisonment for fabrication of valuable securities which is punishable with life imprisonment, the ACMM was required to be cautious at the time of granting bail in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner withdrew the present petition in view of the prima facie observations of the court regarding the impropriety in which the bail application had been allowed by the ACMM.PTI ADS RKS RKS