Swaranjit @ Sunil vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Bindal, J.—Common issue involved in these four petitions, bearing Crl. Misc.-M Nos. 16991, 20108, 23647 and 24843 of 2011 is as to whether an accused filing a bail application before any court is required to mention about the pendency or decision of earlier bail application(s) filed by him in any court. This court had earlier considered the issue in Crl. Misc. No. 44923-M of 2007, decided on 24.3.2008, in which the following directions were issued:-

However, keeping in view the interest of justice and to avoid repeat of such incident in future, the Registry may examine the desirability of issuing instructions to the effect that at the time of filing of the bail application before the trial court, an affidavit is required to be filed regarding the pendency of any bail application filed by the person concerned in any court besides the statement regarding the decision of the earlier bail application. Even in petitions filed in this Court a statement should be made regarding the pendency of any other bail application before any Court and/or the details of petitions already decided.

Registry is directed to take note of this.

The matter was considered by Hon''ble the then Chief Justice and it was decided to circulate the same to all District & Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh and the Registry had circulated the same vide memo dated 6.11.2008.

FACTS

Crl. Misc.-M No. 16991 of 2011

The petitioner applied for bail in FIR No. 23 dated 22.2.2011, registered u/s 420 IPC at P.S. Guhla, District Kaithal by filing a petition in this Court on 27.5.2011 which was listed before the Court on 1.6.2011 and notice of motion was issued for 8.8.2011. On 23.9.2011, the petition was disposed of as infructuous on the statement of learned Counsel for the State that the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by the learned trial court on 12.8.2011. To ascertain as to whether the factum of pendency of the present petition before this Court was mentioned in the bail application filed by the petitioner before the court below, a report was called from the court concerned. Learned District & Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide memo dated 20.10.2011 has sent a report given by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla stating therein that the factum of pendency of the bail application before this Court, was not mentioned in the application for bail filed in the court below.

Crl. Misc.-M No. 20108 of 2011

The petition for bail was filed in this Court by the petitioner on 6.7.2011 in which notice of motion was issued on 8.7.2011 for 20.9.2011. On the next date, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition be dismissed as infructuous as the petitioner has already been released on bail by the learned trial court on 11.8.2011. That was apparently during the pendency of the bail application before this Court. To ascertain as to whether the petitioner had mentioned the factum of filing of the bail application in this Court in the petition filed before the court below, a report from the court below was called for. The same has been received vide memo dated 28.9.2011 from the District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar annexing therewith copy of the letter from the concerned Judicial Magistrate. It is stated therein that the factum of filing and pendency of the bail application before this Court was not mentioned in the bail application filed in the court below.

Crl. Misc.-M No. 23647 of 2011

The petition for bail was filed in this Court by the petitioner on 2.8.2011 in which notice of motion was issued on 5.8.2011 for 20.9.2011. On the next date, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition be dismissed as infructuous as the petitioner has already been released on bail by the learned trial court on 27.8.2011. That was apparently during the pendency of the bail application before this Court. To ascertain as to whether the petitioner had mentioned the factum of filing of the bail application in this Court in the petition filed before the court below, a report from the court below was called for. The same has been received vide memo dated 10.10.2011 from the concerned Judicial Magistrate. It is stated therein that the petitioner herself made an application for bail and stated on oath that no other bail application is pending in any other court.

Crl. Misc.-M No. 24843 of 2011

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition as the petitioner has been released on bail by the court below on 8.9.2011. However, the fact remains that in the petition filed by the petitioner in this Court, notice of motion was issued to the State on 18.8.2011 for 31.10.2011. It is thereafter that the petition was filed before the court below for bail, which was accepted.

In view of the statement made by learned counsels in Crl. Misc.-M Nos. 20108, 23647 and 24843 of 2011, the same are dismissed as infructuous as the petitioners therein have already been released on bail by the courts below.

Before parting with the order, this Court is constrained to put on record the casualness in which the courts below are proceeding. Despite a specific direction by this Court in order passed in Crl. Misc.-M No. 44923 of 2007, which was circulated to all the courts concerned for compliance, still the petitions are being accepted without mentioning of filing or pendency of bail applications in any other court. These are not the cases in isolation. Similar situation arises in many cases. It seems that the directions of this Court are being ignored totally. Accused are misusing the process of law without disclosing complete facts before the court. Let the matter be placed before Hon''ble the Acting Chief Justice for taking appropriate action/step.

A copy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case.