SHAHZAD HASAN KHAN versus ISHTIAQ HASAN KHAN & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 28-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR, K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHAHZAD HASAN KHAN 
v. 
ISHTIAQ HASAN KHAN & ANR. 
)-
APRIL 28, 1987 
B 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND K.N. SINGH JJ.) 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 436--439 Bail-App/i-
)I. 
c 
cation for grant of-Rejected-Subsequent application-To be placed 
before the same Judge who passed the earlier order-Successive app/ica-
\_ 
tions not to be posted before different Judges. 
Practice and Procedure-Bail-Successive applications for grant 
of-To be placed before the same Judge who passed the earlier order-
Desirability of. 
The first respondent and three others were alleged to have 
D murdered the deceased. The first respondent absconded after the 
occurrence and surrendered in court later. The trial court rejected his 
bail application, and three successive bail applications were rejected by 
a Single Judge of the High Court. The first respondent made another 
attempt in the High Court to get bail. Having regard to the judicial 
discipline and prevailing practice in the High Court, another Single 
E Judge of the High Court, sitting as a Vacation Judge, ordered that the 
bail application be placed before the same learned Judge who· had dealt 
with the case on earlier occasions. However, a few days later, the 
Judge, after recalling his earlier order, granted bail on the ground that 
the trial could not be commenced or completed as directed by another 
Single Judge and because of the delay the accused was entitled to bail, 
F and that the liberty of a citizen was involved. The complainant has tiled 
an appeal to this Court against the aforesaid order. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court 
granting bail, this Court, 
G 
HELD: I. Normally this Court does not interfere with bail mat-
ters and the orders of the High Court relating to grant or rejection of 
bail are generally accepted to be final but some disturbing features have 
~ 
persuaded this Court to interfere in the instant case, with the order of 
the High Court. [38E) 
H 
2. No doubt liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by 
34 
-
• 
i. 
SHAHZAD HASAN v. ISHTIAQ HASAN 
35 
court. Nonetheless, when a person is accused of a serious offence like 
murder and his successive bail applications are rejected on merit, there 
being prima facie material, the prosecution is entitled to place correct 
facts before the Court. Liberty is to be secured through process of law, 
which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the 
near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and 
believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest 
of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and 
indulge in private retribution. [40C·E] 
3. The convention that subsequent bail application should be 
placed before the same Judge who may have passed earlier orders has 
its roots in principle. It prevents abuse of process of court inasmuch as 
an impression is not created that a litigant is shunning or selecting a 
court depending on whether the court Is to his liking or not, and is 
encouraged to tile successive applications without any new factor 
having cropped up. If successive bail applications on the same subject 
are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges there would be 
contlicting orders and a litigant would be pestering every Judge till he 
gets an order to his liking resulting in the credibility of the court and 
the confidence of the other side being puf in issue and there would 
be wastage of court's time. Judicial discipline requires that such a 
matter must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available for 
orders. [39B-D] 
4. One of the salutory principles in granting bail is that the 
Court should be satisfied that the accused being enlarged on bail will 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
not be in a position to tamper with the evidence. When allegations of 
tampering of evidence are made, it is the duty of the court to satisfy 
itself whether those allegations have basis and if the allegations are not 
found to be concocted it would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction in 
F 
enlarging the accused on bail. [40FH] 
5. In the jnstant case, as three successive bail applications made 
on behalf of the first respondent had been rejected and finally-disposed 
of by the same Judge, it would have been appropriate and desirable and 
\,.-
also in keeping with the prevailing practice in the High Court that the 
G 
subsequent bail application also should have been placed b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.