Punjab and Haryana High Court castigates Judge for ‘grave judicial indiscipline’
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, August 11
The Punjab and Haryana HC has castigated an Additional Sessions Judge for “grave judicial indiscipline warranting disciplinary action”.
Justice Manoj Bajaj has also directed the placing of the matter before the High Court Chief Justice through the Registrar General for “further orders on administrative side”.
The admonition by Justice Bajaj came in a case where Nuh Additional Sessions Judge, vide order date June 18, 2020, granted anticipatory bail to six respondents-accused declared proclaimed persons in a criminal complaint.
‘Proclaimed persons favoured’
The admonition by Justice Manoj Bajaj came in a case where Nuh Additional Sessions Judge had granted anticipatory bail to six accused declared proclaimed persons
Justice Bajaj observed the Judge exercised discretion in favour of the persons in an illegal manner after a delay without explanation for their absence from trial proceedings
Justice Bajaj asserted that the trial proceedings were very much within knowledge of the private respondents initially summoned by trial court for July 21, 2017. They also contested a revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant. Admittedly, the respondents preferred two successive petitions for anticipatory bail. But the claim was not pressed and both pleas were withdrawn in July 2019 and January 2020.
The accused continued to remain absent from the trial proceedings and made third attempt at pre-arrest bail. This time, Nuh Additional Sessions Judge extended interim concession to the proclaimed persons. Acting on a plea challenging the order, the HC remanded the matter back to the Judge with a direction to consider and deal with the petitioner’s contentions. Thereafter, the Judge finally decided the third application and “made absolute” his previous order.
Justice Bajaj observed concededly the third application was founded on the same cause of action without any change in the circumstances. The Judge accepted the prayer without analysing its maintainability or discussing the merits of the case.
Justice Bajaj observed the impugned order made it clear that the Judge exercised discretion in favour of the accused without dealing with the objections raised by the state counsel, who opposed the prayer by highlighting the applicants were proclaimed persons.
