Mandatory to mention pleas pending in lower courts in bail applications: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul also ordered that the public prosecutors /prosecuting agency would be duty-bound to apprise the court concerned on the issue after collecting necessary information from the investigating officers

Mandatory to mention pleas pending in lower courts in bail applications: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Photo credit: iStock

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 2

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has changed the way bail pleas are filed in each and every case before the lower courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh—it has now made it mandatory for an applicant to specify in the plea whether bail applications under any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure have, or have not, been filed before any superior court.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul also ordered that the public prosecutors /prosecuting agency would be duty-bound to apprise the court concerned on the issue after collecting necessary information from the investigating officers.

“In case of lapse/default on the investigating agency/prosecution’s part in this regard, it would be construed to be a fraud played upon the Court, which could invite departmental as well as penal action against the erring parties/officials, as the case may be”. The Registrar-General was also directed to circulate the order to “all concerned” for not only information but also “necessary and strict compliance”.

The directions came on a second regular bail petition in a house-trespass case registered in August last year under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC at Hajipur police station in Hoshiarpur district.

A report was called from the court below after the petitioner’s counsel, on a previous date of hearing, sought the petition’s withdrawal on the ground that he had since been released on bail by Mukerian Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Justice Kaul observed the report clearly revealed that the petition’s pendency was cleverly concealed from the court below. Refusing the petition’s withdrawal, Justice Kaul added the court deemed it appropriate to take suo motu cognizance of the fraud played upon both the high court and the trial court by the petitioner. Notice was also issued to the petitioner as to why the bail should be not cancelled.

Justice Kaul further added time and again, more so in the recent past, it came to the court’s notice that the accused clandestinely approached the trial court seeking similar relief in bail matter by either concealing the pendency of a petition before the high court or by misrepresenting facts. Such malpractices were undoubtedly a matter of serious concern deserving to be nipped in the bud at the earliest.

Before parting, Justice Kaul made it clear to the courts below in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh that bail pleas would also mention the outcome if a superior court was at all approached for similar relief. An application not containing the information would not be accepted/ entertained and returned for resubmission with necessary information.

Tribune Shorts

Cities

View All