爱上海,上海419论坛,上海龙凤419 - Powered by ASJ Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To An Accused While Denying Same To Another In Same Matter: Patna High Court Calls For Probe In The Administrative Side

ASJ Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To An Accused While Denying Same To Another In Same Matter: Patna High Court Calls For Probe In The Administrative Side

first_imgNews UpdatesASJ Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To An Accused While Denying Same To Another In Same Matter: Patna High Court Calls For Probe In The Administrative Side Sparsh Upadhyay6 Feb 2021 5:23 AMShare This – xSince the same judicial officer has passed conflicting orders in the same case against the material on the record, the conduct and fairness in judicial approach of the judicial officer concern may require probe in the administrative side: Patna High CourtThe Patna High Court recently called for an administrative probe against ASJ-I of Patna City sub-division for passing conflicting orders in the same case, wherein while granting anticipatory bail to one accused, he denied the same to another who was facing similar charges in the same murder case. The Bench of Justice Birendra Kumar was hearing suo motu criminal revision matter…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Patna High Court recently called for an administrative probe against ASJ-I of Patna City sub-division for passing conflicting orders in the same case, wherein while granting anticipatory bail to one accused, he denied the same to another who was facing similar charges in the same murder case. The Bench of Justice Birendra Kumar was hearing suo motu criminal revision matter wherein correctness and judicial propriety of order dated 23rd December 2019 passed in A.B.P. No. 9658 of 2019 by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna City was called into question. The matter in brief While initiating suo-moto criminal revision, the Bench noticed that allegation against Putur Paswan, who was refused anticipatory bail, and against Brind Paswan, who was allowed anticipatory bail, by the same Presiding Officer was of same magnitude of commission of assault by Katta and iron rod causing injury at the head and other parts of three persons including the informant. The injury caused to the mother of the informant had resulted in her death. The same Presiding Judge had considered prayer for anticipatory bail of opposite party-Brind Paswan and allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail on 23rd December 2019 whereas prayer of one Putur Paswan was already refused by the same Judge on 11th November 2019. When a report in this matter was called upon, the District Judge, Patna (vide letter dated 10th September 2020) submitted a report concluding that the order passed by the Presiding Judge in the matter of prayer for anticipatory bail of opposite party-Brind Paswan and Putur Paswan were inconsistent in nature. Court’s observations Having analysed the facts of the case and the alleged roles of both Brind Paswan (who was granted pre arrest Bail) and Putur Paswan (who was denied pre arrest Bail), the Court noted, “While granting anticipatory bail to opposite party-Brind Paswan, the learned court below did not consider that how the case of Brind Paswan was distinguishable from Putur Paswan who was already refused anticipatory bail by the learned court.” The Court further noted, “The learned court below did not consider that the learned court below had itself refused prayer for anticipatory bail to co-accused Putur Paswan allegation against whom was identical to that of Brind Paswan who was allowed anticipatory bail after few days of refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail to Putur Paswan.” Thus, the Court opined that the impugned order suffers from non-application of judicial mind, lacks reason, is result of error of record and suffers from non-consideration of material on the records i.e. serious act committed by Brind Paswan. Hence, the impugned order was found to be not sustainable in law and accordingly, the same was thereby set aside and the revision application was allowed. Pursuant to this, opposite Party-Brind Paswan was directed to surrender and pray for regular bail within four weeks. Importantly, the Court said, “Since the same judicial officer has passed conflicting orders in the same case against the material on the record, the conduct and fairness in judicial approach of the judicial officer concern may require probe in the administrative side.” Hence, the Court ordered that the order along with the judicial record of this criminal revision application as well as of Cr. Misc. No. 1095 of 2020 be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for needful. Case title – The State Of Bihar v. Brind Paswan Click Here To Download JudgmentRead JudgmentNext Storylast_img

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *