RINKU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Without going into the factual-matrix of the case, suffice it to mention that similarly situated accused, namely, Kapil and Pankaj, had been admitted to bail by the learned Sessions Judge as appears recorded by the learned Judge who passed the rejection order which gave rise to the present petition.

(2.) It is extremely painful to note that in spite of having noted that similarly situated accused have been granted bail by a court of coordinate jurisdiction, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Court No.5, Mainpuri was taking a view different from the learned Sessions Judge without assigning any reason in that behalf. Powers are vested for granting relief in appropriate fact-situation; they are never vested for taking a view which could be injudicious or not in conformity with judicial norms of uniformity and parity in orders. In most of the cases which I have heard while sitting in bail jurisdiction, what I found was that the learned Judges who were the Judges manning the court of sessions in different judgeships had not even cared to refer to the case diary or probably had not even exercised their powers under Section 172 Cr.P.C. to have a glance of the record of investigation and then note down, for the benefit of the higher courts like the high courts, as to what were the facts and the grounds arising there from due to which they could not have exercised their discretionary powers. Orders rejecting prayers for bail could not be treated to be hallmarks of honesty and integrity. If the judges manning the court of sessions are attempting to impress upon the High Court that by refusing the prayer for bail they will be earning the certificate of integrity then they must be informed that in appropriate cases the High Court may pull up the right strings to correct the lapses of rejecting an appropriate prayer. High Court has to be magnanimous but not unduly.

(3.) While dealing with the question of granting anticipatory bail, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab, 1980 AIR(SC) 1632, speaking through the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India was noting the prudence of the legislature in vesting the powers of entertaining and hearing anticipatory bail applications only because those officers, who were manning the higher courts, like, the court of sessions and had equally been vested with the coordinate powers with the High Court, were supposed to be as senior judges as to apply due care and caution including the seeking of the records of police investigation in appropriate cases for judging the prayer for bail. That principle cannot be deviated from by any Judge of any rank who is called upon in performance of his judicial functions to decide a prayer for bail. A Judge could not be discharging his duties by rejecting prayers. It is supposed that he applies his mind to the question of restoring the liberty of a citizen who approaches him to seek an order of bail by appropriately appreciating the materials which had been collected by the police denying investigation. Negative judicial approach is antithesis to principles of our administration of criminal justice. Courts are supposed to apply themselves to the facts of the case to reach a conclusion even in such trifle matters as of granting or not granting prayer for bail.