Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 807 (MP)

Ramlakhan Singh v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-08-14

SHEEL NAGU

body2020
JUDGMENT Sheel Nagu, J. - The present petition u/S 439 (2) Cr.P.C is filed seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent No.2-Dharmendra vide order dated 16.06.2020 by the IInd A.S.J Seondha, District Datia in B.A. No. 198/2020. 2. The said bail was granted by the learned trial Judge for a period of 45 days and it is not disputed that the respondent No.2 after availing the said benefit of bail for 45 days, has surrendered on 04.08.2020. 3. The order, which is sought to be cancelled by the petitioner, has exhausted by surrender of the respondent No.2 on 04.08.2020. However, the factual matrix attending this case reveal a disturbing picture where the judicial discipline based on hierarchy of courts in the criminal justice system and propriety, have been ignored by the learned trial Judge. For the sake of clarity, the factual matrix involved is detailed below in a chronological manner: S. No. Date Event 1 28/06/2017 First bail application (M.Cr.C. No.6334/2017) filed before High Court by respondent No.2 - Dharmendra Singh is rejected on merits. 2 03/07/2019 12th bail application (M.Cr.C. No.21367/2019) of respondent No.2-Dharmendra filed on the compassionate ground of ill health of mother is rejected by High Court. 3 19/03/2020 13th bail application vide M.Cr.C. No.12789/2020 is filed by respondent No.2- Dharmendra before the High Court. 4 13/06/2020 Bail application is filed by respondent No.2- Dharmendra before IInd ASJ Seondha, district Datia on the ground of ill health of mother (this application was filed during pendency of M.Cr.C. No.12789/2020 before High Court). 5 16/06/2020 Interim bail of 45 days is granted to the respondent No-2 Dharmendra by IInd ASJ Seondha, district Datia. 6 25/06/2020 M.Cr.C. No. 12789/2020 is dismissed as withdrawn on request of counsel. 7 04/08/2020 Respondent No.2-Dharmendra surrenders after availing benefit of interim bail of 45 days. 4. The aforesaid chronological event reveals that during pendency of M.Cr.C. No. 12789/2020 filed by respondent No.2- Dharmendra, the same accused Dharmendra preferred a bail application seeking interim bail on the ground of ill health of mother and surprisingly learned trial judge IInd ASJ Seondha granted interim bail for 45 days despite having knowledge of pendency of M.Cr.C. No.12789/2020 in the High Court. 5. 5. The order of grant of interim bail for 45 days by learned trial Judge IInd ASJ Seondha reveals that the trial Court was knowing about the fact of M.Cr.C. No. 12789/2020 being pending before the High Court and yet the trial judge instead of declining to entertain any prayer for bail made by the same accused Dharmendra who's bail application was pending adjudication in the higher forum, granted bail to respondent No.2-Dharmendra. 6. The petitioner has brought on record the application preferred by respondent No.2-Dharmendra before the trial court seeking interim bail which categorically discloses the fact of pendency of M.Cr.C. No. 12789/2020 before the High Court but justifies approaching of the trial Court during pendency of said M.Cr.C by assiging the reason that the said M.Cr.C. No.12789/2020 was not being listed before the High Court. 7. Thus, prima-facie it appears that there has been no suppression of material facts on the part of respondent No.2- Dharmendra or his counsel but the question of propriety and judicial discipline arises for consideration before this Court owing to Second ASJ Seondha district Datia entertaining a bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C and passing orders on the same knowing very well that the same application under the same provision by the same petitioner -Dharmendra is pending consideration before the High Court of M.P., Gwalior Bench, in shape of M.Cr.C. No. 12789/2020. 8. Accordingly, this Court, without jumping to any conclusion about impropriety or illegality of the order of interim bail passed by second ASJ Seondha dated 16.06.2020, deems it appropriate to direct the Registry to take appropriate steps for enquiring into the matter by way of a discreet enquiry by the Vigilance Cell of the High Court after following the due process as per the laid down procedure. 9. The matter be placed before the Principal Registrar for doing the needful and listing the matter after four weeks.