Singh @ Seeta Vs. State of Punjab & Anr  Insc 642 (6 December 2001)
Shah & B.N. Agrawal Shah, J.
appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.8.2001 passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Crl. Misc. No.10947-M of 2001, whereby
the bail granted to the appellant by the High Court vide its order dated
2.2.2001 in Crl. Misc.No.1772-M of 2001 has been cancelled.
appellant who was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under sections
302/34 and 307/34 IPC moved an application for releasing him on bail. That
application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 26.8.2000.
Appellant preferred Criminal Misc. No.1772-M of 2001 for releasing him on bail
before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. That application was allowed
by Mr. S.S. Nijjar, J. on 2.2.2001 by observing that appellant caused injury to
the deceased on the back of the head and the post mortem examination shows that
there was only one injury on the head. The Court, therefore, observed that case
for bail was made out.
informant filed Criminal Misc. No.10947-M of 2001 for cancellation of bail by
pointing out that as per the post mortem examination there were three injuries
on the head of the deceased. It was also pointed out that similarly situated
other accused Jaspal Singh was not granted bail. The bail was granted on
misconception of facts and hence the misconception order granting bail to the
appellant may be set aside.
aforesaid Crl. Misc. Petition was placed before Mr. M.L. Singhal, J., who
allowed the same by observing as under:- The bail appears to have been allowed
to Harjeet Singh @ Seeta only on the feeling that there was only one injury on
the head, whereas infact there were three injuries on the head and those
injuries have been attributed to Harjeet Singh, Gurbax Singh and Jaspal Singh.
The doctor, who performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body was of
the opinion that the cause of death was due to head injuries leading to
pulmonary embolism which are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of nature. It was, thus, not a case where bail could have been allowed to Harjeet
Singh @ Seeta. So, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Bail
allowed to Harjeet Singh @ Seeta is cancelled and he is ordered to be taken
order is challenged by filing this appeal.
senior counsel Mr. Jain appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned
order passed by the learned Judge is totally illegal, unjustified and erroneous
and was not consistent with judicial discipline.
view, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is justified
one. It was not open to the other Judge of the High Court to sit in appeal
against the order passed by co-ordinate bench of the same Court. If the accused
had obtained bail order by misrepresentation or by suppression of facts, it was
for the State Government or the aggrieved party to approach the appropriate
higher forum. In any case, for cancellation of the bail on the ground of mis-
representation or mis-statement, the matter ought to have been placed before
the same Judge.
law on this aspect is well settled. In Shahzad Hasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan
Khan and another [(1987) 2 SCC 684], while dealing with the subsequent bail
application, this Court observed, normally this Court does not interfere with
bail matters and the orders of the High Court are generally accepted to be
final relating to grant or rejection of bail. Thereafter, the Court stated that
longstanding convention and judicial discipline require that subsequent bail
application ought to have been placed before the same Judge who had passed
earlier orders. Placing of such matter before the same Judge has its roots in
principle as it prevents abuse of process of court inasmuch as an impression is
not created that a litigant is shunning or selecting a court depending on
whether the Court is to his liking or not, and is encouraged to file successive
applications without any new factor having cropped up; if successive bail
applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different
Judges, there would be conflicting orders. The Court finally observed that
judicial discipline requires that such matters should be placed before the same
Judge, if he is available for orders.
principle is required to be followed even for setting aside the order passed by
the Court granting bail on the ground of mis- representation or mis-statement
or suppression of some facts.
in Vikramjit Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [1992 Supp (3) SCC 62], dealing
with similar situation, this Court observed as under:- .No bench can comment on
the functioning of a co-ordinate bench of the same court, much less sit in the
judgment as an appellate court over its decision. That which could not be done
directly could also not be done indirectly. Otherwise, a party aggrieved by an
order passed by one bench of the High Court would be tempted to attempt to get
the matter reopened before another bench, and there would not be any end to
it was not consistent with the judicial discipline which must be maintained by
courts both in the interest of administration of justice by assuring the
binding nature of an order which becomes final, and the faith of the people in
the judiciary In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed, the impugned
order is set aside. It would be open to the State Government or the aggrieved
party to approach the Court for cancellation of bail on the ground of any
objectionable conduct on the part of the accused and/or by pointing out that
the order granting bail was obtained by suppression of material fact and in
such case matter may be placed before the same Judge, who granted bail, if
AGRAWAL) December 6 ,