Disturbing trend of lower courts entertaining bail pleas despite pendency before higher courts: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday expressed its displeasure over the “disturbing trend” of subordinate courts entertaining bail applications despite the pendency of similar proceedings before higher courts [Shiv Lingam v. State]..Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta directed the trial courts to ascertain from the petitioner/accused whether there is pendency of any bail application before the higher forum or rejection of any earlier bail application before considering such petitions.This would ensure that the doctrine of judicial discipline and propriety is upheld and would avoid any bench hunting, the Court said.“As such, judicial wisdom forecasts a duty on concerned court to make enquiry as to pending bail application, if any, with courts in hierarchy or rejection of any bail application by higher court, to avoid any miscarriage of justice. The consideration of bail application by subordinate court despite pendency of an application with the higher court or without consideration of grounds rejection of earlier application by higher courts, may be an utter disregard to judicial discipline,” the order stated..Justice Mendiratta was dealing with a petition filed by an accused challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) at Tis Hazari Courts which rejected his bail application. The accused was arrested in September 2021 on allegations of trespassing and possessing false and fabricated documents.While in custody, his bail applications were dismissed first by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and then the ASJ. However, on moving another application before the ACMM, he was granted bail in April 2022, despite the fact that a bail application was already pending before the Sessions Court.The application was disposed of as infructuous by the Session Court later, in view of the grant of bail by the ACMM.The complainant in the case then challenged the ACMM’s order before the ASJ, who cancelled the accused’s bail on June 6 taking into account the pendency of bail application before the Sessions Court as well as the fact that his earlier applications were also rejected..As the Court expressed its prima facie view regarding the impropriety with which the bail was granted, counsel appearing for the petitioner withdrew the petition and said that he would surrender before the trial court..In its order, the High Court noted that an accused whose bail application has been rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application in case of change in circumstance or factual position.But, in case the subsequent application is allowed, the court has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the earlier applications preferred on behalf of the accused, the judge said.Justice Mendiratta also observed that in the present case, the ACMM was expected to give due consideration to the grounds which weighed with the court in rejecting the earlier bail applications.The ACMM, the High Court’s order recorded, should not have considered the application in a routine manner during the pendency of a bail application before the Sessions Court, as apparently there was no substantial change of circumstances.“It may also be observed that if the record of earlier orders rejecting the bail application is concealed by the petitioner, then inevitably the Judicial Officer concerned may remain under an impression that no bail application had been considered earlier by any court. In the aforesaid eventuality, since the fraud vitiates all proceedings, the consideration of the bail application, would be no exception.”.The Court directed its Registrar General to ensure that a copy of this order is circulated to all the judicial officers in the subordinate courts in the city..Advocate Anif Ahmed appeared for the petitioner in the case. APP MP Singh appeared for the State. Advocates K Srivastava and Abhijeet Yadav appeared for the complainant..[Read Order]