PARAMJEET SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances giving rise to this reference are that a learned Single Judge of this Court had passed an order dated 30th April 1996 in Crl.M.(M) No.954 of 1.995 to the effect that henceforth all the bail applications filed under Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) should be dealt with by the Sessions Judge himself at the Tis Hazari Courts and by the respective Judges Incharge at the Patiala House and the Karkardoma Courts. As a result of the said direction only the Sessions Judge, Delhi is hearing all then bail applications which are filed in the Sessions Court in the Tis Hazari Courts complex. Likewise the Judges Incharge in the Patiala House Court complex and in the Karkarduma Court complex alone are hearing similar applications. This has naturally resulted in the bail applications getting piled up because only one Judge each has to hear and dispose of all the applications at the three Court complexes. The problem became more acute in the Tis Hazari Courts complex because there the number of bail applications filed is much more as compared to two other places due to the fact that it caters to a larger area having larger number of police stations within its jurisdiction. Situation came to this that the bail applications could not be taken up for hearing for days together because of a long list of such applications.

(2.) Section 439 of the 'Code deals with the powers of the High Court and the Court of Sessions regarding grant of bail- This provision confers concurrent power, on the High Court and the Sessions Court to entertain bail applications. Similarly Section 438 of the Code which contains provisions regarding grant of anticipatory bail confers concurrent power on the High Court and the Court of Sessions in that behalf. Some of the applicants whose bail applications remained pending belore the Sessions Judge for days together, approached this Court with prayer for grant of bail, highlighting the fact that the bail applications moved by them before the Sessions Judge had remained pending and had not come up even for hearing for days together.

(3.) In these petitions a grievance was made that the petitioners were being denied even the right to get a preliminary hearing before the Court. This was resulting in their continued incarceration. If they could get bail they could regain their personal liberty. The petitioners invoked Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and submitted that denial of right to even approach the Court with prayer for bail strikes at the very root of the concept of rule of law and is negation of the Constitutional guarantee.