HARJEET SINGH @ SEETA versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 06-12-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
HARJEET SINGH @ SEETA 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 6, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Judicial discipline : 
Application.for grant of bail-Allowed by Single Judge qf High Court-
Cance/led by another Single _Judge-Held, not justified-A Judge of the High 
Court cannot sit in appeal against order passed by co-ordinate Benc:h o.f the 
same court-Code qf Crimin{1/ Procedure, 1973-Section 439. 
Appellant was charge-sheettd nnder Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of 
the Penal Code. He filed an application for bail and it was rejected by the 
D 
Trial Court. However, Single Judge of the High Court allowed the applica-
tion. Informant filed an application for cancellation of bail before some 
other Judge of the High Court alleging that the bail was granted on 
misconception of facts. The application was allowed. Hence the present 
appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
G 
HELD: For cancellation of the bail on the ground of misrepresenta-
tion or mis-statement, th_e matter ought to have been placed before the 
same Judge. The Order of cancellation of bail passed by the other Judge of 
High Court is totally illegal, unjustified and erroneous and was not consist-
ent with judicial discipline. It was not open to the other judge of the High 
Court to sit in appeal against the order pas;ed by co-ordinate Bench of the 
same court. If the accused had obtained bail order by misrepresentation or 
by suppression of facts, it was for the State Government or the aggrieved 
party to approach the appropriate higher forum. [496-C-D] 
Sha/mu! Hamn Khan v. ishtiuq Hamn Khan and Am:, [1987] 2 SCC 
684 and Vikramjit Singh v. Swe of Madhrn Pradesh, [1992] Supp. 3 SCC 62, 
relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1253 
H 
of 2001. 
494 
HARJEET SINGH v. STATE [SHAH, J.] 
495 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana 
A 
High Court in Crl. M. No. 10947-M of 2001. 
R.K. Jain and P.N. Puri for the Appellant. 
A.V. Palli, Mrs. Rekha Palli, R.C. Kohli and R.S. Suri for the Respond-
en ts. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHAH, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.8.2001 
passed by the High Court of Punjab and .Haryana in Crl. Misc. No.10947-M 
of 200 I, whereby the bail granted to the appellant by the High Court vide its 
order dated 2.2.2001 in Crl. Misc. No.1772-M of 2001 has been cancelled. 
The appellant who was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under 
sections 302/34 and 307 /34 !PC moved an application for releasing him on bail. 
That application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 26.8.2000. 
Appellant preferred Criminal Misc. No.1772-M of 2001 for releasing him on 
bail before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. That application was 
allowed by Mr. S.S. Nijjar, J. on 2.2.2001 by observing that appellant caused 
injury to the deceased on the back of the head and the post mortem examination 
shows that there was only one injury on the head. The Court, therefore, 
observed that case for bail was made out. 
Thereafter, informani" filed Criminal Misc. No.10947-M of 2001 for 
cancellation of bail by pointing out that as per the post mortem examination 
there were three injuries on the head of the deceased. It was also pointed out 
that similarly situated other accusedJaspal Singh was not granted bail. The bail 
was granted on misconception of facts and hence the misconception order 
granting bail to the appellant may be set aside. 
The aforesaid Crl. Misc. Petition was placed before Mr. M.L. Singhal, 
J., who allowed the same by observing as under:-
''The bail appears to have been allowed to Harjeet Singh @ Seeta only 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
on the feeling that there was only one injury on the head, whereas 
infact there were three in juries on the head and those injuries have been 
attributed to Harject Singh, Gurbax Singh and Jaspal Singh. The 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
doctor, who performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body 
was of the opinion that the cause of death was due to head injuries 
leading to pulmonary embolism which are sufficient to cause death in 
the ordinary course of nature. It was, thus, not a case where bail could 
have been allowed to Harjeet Singh @ Seeta. So, this criminal miscel-
laneous petition is allowed. Bail allowed to Harjeet Singh @ Seeta is 
cancelled and he is ordered to be taken into custody." 
That
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.