Umesh Singh Vs. High
Court of Allahabad & ANR  INSC 1108 (11 July 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1070 OF 2008
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL)NO.2680 OF 2005) UMESH SINGH Appellant(s) VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD & ANR. Respondent(s) ORDER Delay condoned.
appellant had joined the U.P.Higher Judicial Service as a direct recruit on
14.12.1998 and was posted as VII Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Deoria.
The appellant, while working as Additional Sessions Judge at Bareilly, declined
bail to an accused, who was suspected to be in possession of some stolen
ornaments and jewellery. The accused was arrested by the police while she was trying
to sell the stolen property. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that
the accused might have been possessing stolen articles and the bail was
rejected. This order was challenged by the accused before the High Court. The
learned single Judge of the High Court granted bail to the accused and directed
that notice be issued to the Sessions Judge as to why he had declined bail to
the accused and that which offence was committed by the accused and thereafter
notice was issued to the appellant 2 herein as to why 3 disciplinary
proceedings should not be taken against him. The appellant submitted his
explanation in reply. Thereafter the learned single Judge observed that no case
was made out against the accused and the rejection of the bail was unjustified
and ordered that adverse remark of warning be entered in the character roll of
the appellant for passing careless orders on the bail application. This order
is under challenge before this Court. Heard learned counsel for the appellant
and learned counsel for the respondent-High Court.
our opinion, the learned single Judge was wrong in observing that no offence
was made out against the accused. A person suspected to be in possession of
stolen property may be alleged to have committed an offence and the Sessions
Judge was justified in declining bail, especially when there was no proper
explanation from the side of the accused. The learned single Judge was not
correct in arriving at such a view but we make it clear that we do not want to
make any observation against the accused at this stage on merits nor do we
observe anything against the grant of bail given by the learned single Judge in
the proceedings. However, the learned single Judge of the High Court was not
justified in making such adverse remarks against the Sessions Judge especially
when there is nothing to show on the part of the Sessions Judge, that he was
acting without any bonafide in discharging his judicial functions.
The order of the learned single Judge is set aside as the same affects the
career of the appellant. The appeal is allowed accordingly.