Inconsistency in bail orders undermines public confidence in judiciary: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently remarked that when courts grant bail to one accused and deny it to another under similar circumstances without any clear justification, it undermines public confidence in the judicial process [Abhishek Yadav @ Laloo vs State of UP] ..Justice Krishan Pahal, while stressing on the importance of consistency in judicial proceedings, said inconsistent orders are frequently being passed and that the High Court is obliged to address and rectify such practices.“Once the liberty of an individual is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, it is necessary that the courts do not subject the litigants to inconsistent orders. The inconsistency arises when two matters having same and identical facts and circumstances are subjected to two different orders, specifically when the subsequent order does not specify reasons for not following the earlier order,” the Court observed..It added that the failure of a court in specifying reasons for passing inconsistent orders may even cast an impression that the order has been passed for some extraneous reasons. “When courts grant bail to one accused and deny it to another under similar circumstances without providing clear and reasoned justifications for the disparity, it creates an impression of unpredictability. Such practices can lead to uncertainty and undermine public confidence in the judicial process.”.Observing that faith in the judiciary is the cornerstone of a democratic society, the Court further said,“This trust is eroded when judicial orders are inconsistent, creating an appearance of partiality or bias. Inconsistent orders can result in unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals, violating the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution of India. Such discrimination not only harms the individuals directly affected, but also, undermines the public's perception of the judicial system's fairness and integrity.”.It also commented that discriminatory practices in judicial acts is a serious breach of duty and gross misconduct by a judicial officer.The judicial act is required to be consistent with the law and fair procedure, the Court added."If the officer concerned does not have the knowledge of basic judicial process of fairness, then the same is a reflection on the capability of the officer concerned to hold judicial office. If the officer concerned has acted for extraneous consideration the same is in violation of judicial polity and conduct.".The Court made the remarks while dealing with an anticipatory bail in a case of physical assault and criminal intimidation. The accused, one Abhishek Yadav, had claimed parity with co-accused who had been granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. It was submitted that there are general allegations against the accused and no specific role has been assigned to anyone.On May 8, the Court had sought an explanation from the trial judge for passing inconsistent bail orders in the case. .The trial judge said he had granted bail to six accused till filing of the charge sheet and denied bail to Yadav after he was informed that the bail of co-accused Vijay Bahadur had been rejected by the High Court. It was explained that when co-accused had been granted bail, the judge was not aware about denial of bail to Bahadur by the High Court. .However, Justice Pahal said Yadav (the present applicant) was not named in the FIR and the evidence against him was at par with the co-accused who had been granted bail by the trial court.“As per record also, there seems nothing on record to distinguish the case of applicant Abhishek Yadav with the co-accused persons Sharda Prasad Yadav and Ritesh @ Acchelal. Such inconsistency raises question on the conduct of the judicial officer,” the Court said, adding the explanation given by the trial judge does not find mention in the bail orders.In this backdrop, the Court granted anticipatory bail to Yadav till the conclusion of trial..Advocate Sandeep Kumar Pandey represented the accused.Advocate RP Patel represented the State.[Read Judgment]