Smt. Bimla Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 263 of 1993
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Petitioner: Smt. Bimla Devi
Respondent: State of Bihar & Ors.
Apeal: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 263 of 1993
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND & FAIZANUDDIN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 20, 1994
Appearances:
Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Bail
Bail – Judicial Magistrate granted provisional bail to the accused while earlier the High Court had rejected two successive applications of the accused for grant of bail – The course adopted by the Magistrate not only contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline and propriety but also contrary to the statutory provisions – Copy of the order to be sent to the the Chief Justice of the High Court for taking such action on the administrative side as may be deemed fit by him.
JUDGEMENT:
FAIZANUDDIN, J. :
1. This petition arises out of a complaint having been made by one Smt. Bimla Devi complaining that Shri P. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad granted bail to the accused-respondent No. 4 involved in a case under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code for murder of her son, in G.R. No. 1619/92, corresponding to Jorapokher P.S. Case No. 168/92, despite the fact that the two earlier bail applications of the said accused were successively rejected by the High Court, Ranchi Bench. This Court had issued a notice to the respondents including the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Dhanbad, Bihar requiring them to show-cause why the bail granted to the accused be not cancelled. The respondent No. 3, Shri P. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate has sent his reply to the show-cause stating that the accused-respondent No. 4 was granted only provisional bail which has been cancelled by him by his order dated 8.6. 1993 and that the accused has already been taken into custody.
2. In view of the fact that the Judicial Magistrate at a later stage has himself cancelled the bail, it is not necessary for us to pass any order with regard to the petitioner’s prayer for cancellation of bail but the disturbing feature of the case is that though two successive applications of the accused for grant of bail were rejected by the High Court yet the learned Magistrate granted provisional bail. The course adopted by the learned Magistrate is not only contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline and propriety but also contrary to the statutory provisions (See in this connection AIR 1987 SC 1613). The manner in which the learned Magistrate dealt with the case can give rise to the apprehensions which were expressed by the complainant in her complaint, which was treated by this Court as a writ petition and is being dealt with as such. In the course that we are adopting, we would not like to comment upon the manner in which the learned Magistrate dealt with the case any more at this stage. We, in the facts and circumstances stated above, direct that a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court for taking such action on the administrative side as may be deemed fit by him.
3. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
1. This petition arises out of a complaint having been made by one Smt. Bimla Devi complaining that Shri P. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad granted bail to the accused-respondent No. 4 involved in a case under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code for murder of her son, in G.R. No. 1619/92, corresponding to Jorapokher P.S. Case No. 168/92, despite the fact that the two earlier bail applications of the said accused were successively rejected by the High Court, Ranchi Bench. This Court had issued a notice to the respondents including the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Dhanbad, Bihar requiring them to show-cause why the bail granted to the accused be not cancelled. The respondent No. 3, Shri P. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate has sent his reply to the show-cause stating that the accused-respondent No. 4 was granted only provisional bail which has been cancelled by him by his order dated 8.6. 1993 and that the accused has already been taken into custody.
2. In view of the fact that the Judicial Magistrate at a later stage has himself cancelled the bail, it is not necessary for us to pass any order with regard to the petitioner’s prayer for cancellation of bail but the disturbing feature of the case is that though two successive applications of the accused for grant of bail were rejected by the High Court yet the learned Magistrate granted provisional bail. The course adopted by the learned Magistrate is not only contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline and propriety but also contrary to the statutory provisions (See in this connection AIR 1987 SC 1613). The manner in which the learned Magistrate dealt with the case can give rise to the apprehensions which were expressed by the complainant in her complaint, which was treated by this Court as a writ petition and is being dealt with as such. In the course that we are adopting, we would not like to comment upon the manner in which the learned Magistrate dealt with the case any more at this stage. We, in the facts and circumstances stated above, direct that a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court for taking such action on the administrative side as may be deemed fit by him.
3. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
