LexKASHI NATH ROY versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c KASH! NATH ROY v. STATE OF BIHAR APRIL 18, 19% [M.M. PUNCHHl AND K.T. THOMAS, .IJ.[ Judicial Stlicture : J11dicial Officer belonging tu supe1ior J11dicial Sc11'ice-Bail in a dacoil\' casc--Earlier reject<:d by his predecesso1~ra11t <~(bail in that ca.re·--Can- cclled by Single Judge of High Cowt-Sllicl11rcs 11as.ml against the J11dicia/ Ojjice1--0n appeal, lte/d, disclosing his mind wltilc granting bail wo11/d lta\'e hecn avoided-Ho1vever it is not such a glaring 111istake or in1pro1Jricty so as to visit the ren1a1*s the High Cozat has chosen to pass on hinz as ivell as to initiate action against hint-Whenever such intolerable ennr is detected or D pointed out to a supelior cou1t it is functionally required to con·ect that en·or in a befitting 111anner through a process of reasoning-But rarely as a rebuke-Hence the ren1arks as such ~1-'ere pulled out fron1 the orders of the High Cowt-Se1vice Law-Supe1ior Judicial Sc1vic<-fudicial stricture-Ex- punction of E F G CRIMINAL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.5.93 of the Patna High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 3442 of 1993. S.B. Sanyal, Braj K. Mishra and Ejaz K. Maqbool for the Appellant. H.L. Agarwal and AK. Jha for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Delay condoned. Leave granted. This is an appeal by a .Judicial Officer in the Superior Juoicial Service H serving in the State of Bihar, who is aggrieved against an order of a learned 558 K.N.ROYv. STATE 559 Single Judge of the High Court of Patna in refusing to expunge remarks A passed against him in a judicial order. The broad facts giving rise lo this appeal are that some accused in a dacoity case, at one point of time, approached the Court of Session, Munger for bail. The learned Sessions Judge rejected their bail application on 15.4.1991. About three months later, the request was renewed. The appellant by then, had assumed Chair in succession. Prayer for bail was reiterated before him on the ground that the evidence of Test Identification Parade of the culprits gathered by the investigation, an evidence important in a dacoity case, was highly suspicious inasmuch as the witnesses who were made to participate in the same, had already on their own disclosed the names of the accused committing the crime to the Investigating officer, which fact the appellant verified from the case-diary to be correct. Viewing B c that ground for bail had been made out, he granted bail to the accused persons vide order dated 17.8.1991. This provoked an application for cancellation of bail at the instance of the complainant before the High D Court. A learned Single Judge of that Court set aside that order and cancelled bail passing remarks that the appellant seemed to have been over-zealous, having gone out of his way in virtually approving the defence case, involving the merit of the matter, as if sitting on trial, forgetting the scope of discussion in disposing of a bail matter. Having observed this, he passed the following order : E "While parting \vith the order, I must opine. that by the aforesaid act, it remains not at all doubtful that this officer has intentionally exceeded and/or transgressed his limits by avoiding and in not maintaining the established decorous norms of the Institution. I, F therefore, say that in my considered view, this officer, K.N. Roy, the then Jncharge sessions Judge, Munger, must be appropriately condemned and, for this, I understand that the only proper forum being the Standing Committee of the Court, this matter may laid before it under administrative approval of the Hon'ble Chief Jus- tice, as scheduled by his Lordship. And ultimately I suggest that G this officer should be divested from exercise of powers on the criminal side!!. The appellant's effort to have expunged remarks made qua him in the orders of the High Court, in particular those as extracted above, failed H A B 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. giving rise to this appeal. As embedded in the criminal jurisprudence obtaining in this country, courts exercising bail jurisdiction normally do and should refrain from indulging in elaborate reasoning in their orders in justification of grant or non-grant of bail. For, in that manner, the principle of "presumption of innocence of an accused" gets jeopardized; and the structural principle of "not guilty '.ill proved
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.