Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Feb 6: High Court today pointed out several serious lapses on the part of prosecutors and Judicial Officer while granting bail to the accused in an abetment to suicide case and issued directions for placement of matter before the Chief Justice for necessary administrative action.
The Judicial Magistrate (3rd Additional Munsiff) had in two identical orders dated June 13, 2013 released on bail Sansar Chand and Deep Mala after their arrest in connection with FIR No.46/2013 registered at Police Station Janipur for commission of offences under Sections 306, 498-A/34 RPC.
The bail orders were challenged before the High Court through a petition filed by Kanta Devi and others, who prayed for setting aside of two identical orders.
After hearing Advocate Vikram Sharma appearing for the petitioner whereas Advocate SK Anand appearing for the respondents, Justice Janak Raj Kotwal quashed the impugned order dated June 13, 2013 granting bail to accused Sansar Chand and cancelled the bail.
“The Trial Court shall secure his presence by issuance of appropriate process and lodge him to judicial custody. The cancellation of the bail, however, will not come in the way of considering his prayer for bail afresh at an appropriate time”, Justice Kotwal directed.
Justice Kotwal also observed, “court cannot resist the glimpses of deliberate bench hunting having been made on behalf of accused Sansar Chand. Disposal of this petition cannot be taken as end of the matter. Some of the questions call for explanation and determination on administrative side”.
Why in the bail application of accused-Deep Mala, police report was prepared and signed by the MHC (Moharar Head Constable) and not by the Investigating Officer of the case, who had submitted report in the earlier bail application of Sansar Chand? Why the Prosecutors in their objections to the bail applications did not point out pendency of the earlier bail application? Why the Duty Magistrate did not feel the necessity of calling separate report in the subsequent bail application moved on behalf of accused Sansar Chand and also did not feel the necessity of examining the CD file, given that the bail was sought in a serious offence under Section 306 RPC involving death of a person punishable with imprisonment which extends to 10 years? and Why the Duty Magistrate ignored/did not take into consideration the copy of police report dated May 29, 2013, which would have shown the pendency of the earlier bail application?
After raising these questions, High Court directed that a copy of this judgment be placed before the Chief Justice for information on the administrative side.