Delhi High Court objects to trial court granting bail despite pending bail plea in HC

The Delhi High Court recently took exception to a trial court deciding the bail plea of a rape accused despite being informed that his bail application was already pending before the High Court [Saahil@ Sahil Vs The State NCT of Delhi]..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasised that judicial propriety and discipline require a subordinate court to exercise due caution and ordinarily refrain from adjudicating an application when a similar plea involving the same accused and the same case is pending before a superior court.The judge observed that while there is no “absolute statutory bar” on a trial court considering a bail application in such circumstances, the principle of comity between courts requires the subordinate court to at least ask the applicant to first withdraw his application from the higher forum."There can be no doubt that the learned Trial Court ought to have exercised greater caution before proceeding to entertain the bail application filed before it, particularly when it had been expressly brought to its notice by the I.O. that a bail application concerning the same accused and the same FIR was already pending before this Court," the Court said..The Court observed that allowing accused persons to simultaneously approach multiple courts with bail applications relating to the same FIR would inevitably encourage forum shopping, where an accused selectively chooses or shifts forums in the hope of securing a favourable order.Thus, it stressed that all counsel filing bail applications before any court should mandatorily disclose, in clear and unambiguous terms, whether any other bail application concerning the same FIR and the same accused is pending before any other court.It further mandated that the concerned investigating officer must apprise the court of the pendency of any bail application filed by the accused before any other court."Such disclosure must form an essential part of the I.O.'s written reply or status report filed before the Court," it said..The Court made these observations while dealing with a bail plea moved by an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). However, during the pendency of the bail application before the High Court, the trial court granted bail to the accused after the minor victim and her father turned hostile. When the High Court was apprised of this development, it sought a report and explanation from the trial judge. The record revealed that the accused, in his bail plea before the trial court, had not disclosed that his bail application was already pending before the High Court. It was, however, noted that the investigating officer had mentioned this fact in the reply filed before the trial court..The Court took exception to conduct of the counsel, who represented the accused, for withholding the facts from the trial court."Every advocate is expected to act with fairness, candour and transparency, and to place all relevant facts before the Court so as to assist in the proper administration of justice. The failure to disclose that a bail application on the same cause of action was already pending before this Court would essentially amount to suppression of a material fact," it said.It also said that the trial court ought to have exercised greater caution before proceeding to entertain the bail application, particularly when it had been expressly brought to its notice by the investigating officer that a bail application of the same accused was already pending before the High Court..However, despite the suppression of fact before the trial court, the Court opined that it would not be appropriate to curtail the liberty of the accused at this stage. "The fact remains that the bail has been granted to the applicant herein on the ground that both the victim and her father have turned hostile before the Trial Court. In these circumstances, recalling or interfering with the bail already granted to him would not serve the ends of justice. This Court, therefore, refrains from interfering with the order granting regular bail to the applicant in any manner," it said.“Nonetheless, the lapse on the part of the learned Trial Court in proceeding with the matter despite the pendency of this bail application before this Court is duly noted," the Court added..Considering that a lapse was committed by a trial court in the present case, the High Court issued a general advisory to all trial court judges in Delhi.“It is impressed upon the learned Judges of the Trial Court to ensure that, before considering any bail application, they satisfy themselves – either from the status report or from the submissions of learned counsel for the accused – whether any application for the same relief is pending adjudication before a higher Court,” the Court said..Advocates Khan Zulfiqar Khan, Deepak Kumar Mishra and Imran Saifi appeared for the accused. Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar appeared for the State[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.