HC sets aside Magistrate’s order granting bail to relative
Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium
Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only BenefitsHolding that a judge must remain “a figure beyond all reasonable reproach”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a bail order passed by a Magistrate. Justice Sumeet Goel described the matter as one involving “issues of the gravest jurisprudential import” as it concerned allegations of judicial bias. The Bench, however, declined the petitioner’s plea for action against the Magistrate as the issue was being "ruminated upon on the administrative side by the court".
The direction came over a month after the court sought the Magistrate’s comments following allegations that she was related to the accused to whom she granted bail. Hearing the petition filed through counsel Fateh Saini, the court observed: “A judge having personal stake/interest in the subject matter or the outcome, howsoever small, is viewed by the law with inherent suspicion, as it adversely compromises the integrity of judicial process.”
The court simultaneously cautioned that supervisory courts must shield judicial officers from frivolous allegations. Claims of bias must rest on “concrete and cogent material”, warning that speculative accusations could “yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process” by allowing litigants to engage in “court/forum hunting”.
The Bench said the petitioner had claimed the Magistrate was related to the accused. This assertion, along with the state’s May 19 compliance report, the preliminary inquiry by the District and Sessions Judge, Ambala, and the Magistrate’s comments, tend to reflect that they were related, though “apparently distant ones”. The judge said where the judge/Magistrate was conscious of such a connection, judicial propriety compelled an "immediate exercise of recusal".
The Bench, however, declined to send the accused to custody immediately. As nearly two years had passed since the bail was granted, abrupt cancellation “would be incongruous with the broader cause of equity and fairness”, it held.
The accused was allowed to remain on existing bail bonds until December 23 and directed to appear before the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ambala, by then. His fresh bail plea, if filed, was directed to be decided the same day.