Lex.JAGMOHAN BAHL & ANR. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 543 .JAGMOHAN BAHL & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 2335 of 2,014) DECEMBER 18, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.439(2), 438 "'.' Bail application - First bail application dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge - Second bail application allowed by another C Additional Sessions Judge who had not dealt with the first bail application - Held: The Judge, who has declined to entertain the prayer for grant of bail, if available, should hear the second bail application or the successive bail applications - It is in consonance with the principle of judicial decorum, discipline D and propriety - Unless such principle is adhered to, there is enormous possibility of forum-shopping which has no sanction in law - Forum shopping - Judicial Decorum - Bail. Disposing of the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1. The High Court held that the Second Judge could not have entertained the bail application especially when the earlier Judge was available. The Additional Sessions Judge who has dealt with the matter on the first occasion, had neither been transferred from the said F court, nor had he become incapacitated to come to court nor was he absent for a considerable length of time. The High Court took exception to the fact that the application was moved when the second Judge was allotted the roaster to deal with the application under Section 438 G Cr.P.C. [Para 7) [548-8-C] 2. Unscrupulous litigants are not to be allowed even to remotely entertain the idea that they can engage in 543 H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R. A forum-shopping, depreciable conduct in the field of law. In the instant case, when the Additional Sessions Judge- 6 had declined to grant the bail application, the next Additional Sessions Judge-04 should have been well advised to place the matter before the same Judge. B However, it is the duty of the prosecution to bring it to the notice of the concerned Judge that such an application was rejected earlier by a different Judge and he was available. In the entire adjudicatory process, the whole system has to be involved. The matter would be c different ifa Judge has demitted the office or has been transferred. Similarly, in the trial court, the matter would stand on a different footing, if the Presiding Officer has · been superannuated or transferred. The fundamental concept is, if the Judge is available, the matter should be heard by him. That will sustain the faith of the people in .D the system and nobody would pave the path of forum- shopping, which is decryable in law. The natural corollary would have been to set aside the order as it has been passed in an illegal manner. However, in the instant case, E the allegations were quite different. The FIR was instituted under Section 420/34 IPe and relates to execution of an agreement. In such a situation, the appellants are directed to move a fresh application for .. bail under Section 438 erPC. [Paras 14, 15 and 16] [551-G-H; 552-A-F] F Ash Mohammad V: Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 446: 2012 (7) SCR 584; Shahzad Hasan Khan V. lshtiaq Hasan Khan and Anr. (1987) 2 sec 684: 1987 (3) SCR 34; State of Maharashtra V. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Supp (2) sec 605: 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 315; G M. Jagan Mohan Rao v. P. V. Mohan Rao (2010) 15 SCC 491; Harjit Singh V. State of Punjab (2002) 1 SCC 649: 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 494; · Vikramjit Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1992 SC 474; Chetak Construction Ltd. V. Om Prakash and Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 577: 1998 (2) SCR 1016; H Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association JAGMOHAN BAHL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 545 V. S. C. Sekar and others (2009) 2 SCC 784: 2008 (17) A SCR 85 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 2012 (7) SCR 584 relied on Para 8 1987 (3) SCR 34 relied on Para 9 B 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 315 relied on Para. 10 (2010) 15 sec. 491 relied on Para 11 2001(5) Suppl. SCR 494 ~elied on Para 11 c AIR 1992 SC 474 relied on Para 12 1998 (2) SCR 1016 relied on Para 13 2008 (17) SCR 85 relied on Para 13 D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2335 of 2014. From the Judgment & Order dated 01.10.2014 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.C. No. 3202 of 2014. E Parag P. Tripathi, Arvind Verma, Neeraj Chaudhari, Ravjyot Singh, Rajesh lnamdar, Gautam Talukar for the Appell
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.