Bail granted to Insp Fisheries quashed for suppressing facts
Strictures passed against Sessions Court
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Nov 4: A worst form of ‘bench hunting’ has come to the notice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, which while taking serious note of the same set-aside the bail granted to Inspector Fisheries for attempting to pollute pure stream of justice by suppressing important facts. Moreover, High Court passed strictures against the Sessions Court for assigning two bail applications on the same date to two different courts and for utter breach of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Click Here To Join Daily Excelsior on WhatsApp And Get Latest News
The case before the Bench of Justice M A Chowdhary was that on the complaint of Anu Bala, Assistant Director Fisheries Jammu, a case was registered at Police Station Nagrota Jammu against the accused Inspector Fisheries Rajesh Singh for commission of offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The accused was arrested by the concerned police on 26.08.2021. Thereafter, on 27.08.2021, he moved a bail application before the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, which was assigned to the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu for disposal under law and the same was presented before the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu on the same day.
The court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge called report from the Police and the bail application was posted on 31.08.2021. However, the accused moved yet another bail application on 27.08.2021 itself which was assigned to the Additional Sessions Court, which also directed Nagrota Police to file a report in the matter on 28.08.2021. Since the report was not filed, the Additional Sessions Court proceeded to grant interim bail to the accused vide order dated 28.08.2021.
The accused intentionally, malafidely and deliberately did not disclose this fact to the Sessions Court that his earlier application was sub-judice before the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and not even a whisper regarding pendency of earlier bail application was made in the subsequent bail application.
The complainant, when came to know about this fact, immediately filed an application seeking cancellation of bail on 03.09.2021 primarily on the ground that the accused has obtained the concession of interim bail by playing fraud, misrepresentation, concealment and suppression of vital facts. However, the Sessions Court made the interim bail absolute, while rejecting complainant’s application for cancellation of bail.
After hearing Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed with Advocate Rahul Raina for Anu Bala and counsel for the respondents, Justice M A Chowdhary observed, “the Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that if the applicant does not disclose full facts and suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court then the court may dismiss the petition without adjudicating the matter on merits”.
“The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it and that if the appellant has not come forward with clean hands, has not candidly disclosed all the facts that he is aware of and he intends to delay the proceedings, then the court will non-suit him on the ground of contumacious conduct”, Justice Chowdhary said.
The High Court observed, “the accused in the case on hand is essentially alleged to have resorted to forum hunting or bench hunting to somehow secure bail by suppressing the important fact that he had already moved an application for grant of bail, which was subjudice before a court of coordinate jurisdiction and that both the applications were moved on the same day”.
“This speaks about the conduct of the respondent as accused and litigant but also of the court, which had assigned his two applications on the same date to two different courts”, High Court said, adding “another important factor is that bail was granted without arraying the complainant as respondent in utter breach of the statutory requirement embodied in Sub-Section 3 and 5 of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act”.
Stating that accused resorted to worst form of ‘bench hunting’ and ‘forum hunting’, High Court said, “such a conduct on the part of litigant is not appreciable and is required to be deprecated as no litigant should be allowed to pollute the pure stream of justice in any manner”, adding “the impugned order otherwise in view of not complying with the statutory retirements of SC/ST Act is also not tenable and is liable to be set-aside”.
“In the case on hand, if it cannot be described as a travesty of justice, however, it certainly amounts to undermining the fairness of justice, when the Sessions Court presided over by a very Senior Judicial Officer had observed the mandatory statutory provisions provided under Sections (3) and (5) of Section 15-A of the Atrocities Act in utter breach and granted bail to the accused without issuance of notice to the victim/complainant and without affording her opportunity of being heard”, High Court said while setting aside the bail granted to accused with the direction to him to surrender before the trial court on November 11, 2024 seeking further orders.
The High Court, while issuing directions for circulating judgment for information and compliance of all the Special Courts constituted under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, stressed that Member Secretaries of Legal Services Authorities of J&K and Ladakh should generate awareness programmes in the interest of general public.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
