LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus CAPTAIN BUDDHIKOTA SUBHA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
CAPTAIN BUDDHIKOTA SUBHA RAO
SEPTEMBER 29, 1989
[A.M. AHMADI AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.)
Constitution of {ndia, 1950: Article 136-Court does not interfere
with order granting bail-Court will interfere when judicial discipline is
sacrified at the alter of judicial discretion.
The respondent, a retired Naval Officer, was apprehended at the
Bombay International Airport when he was about to take a flight to
New York. On search of his luggage certain highly sensitive documents
were found, and he was arrested for breach of the provisions of the
Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.
The respondent filed a number of applications for being released
on bail inter alia on medical grounds. This batch of applications were
rejected by Puranik, J. The attention of Puranik, J. was, however, not
drawn to the pendency of one more such application, in which the
respondent had prayed for grant of bail to facilitate yogic exercises
under expert guidance at his residence. The respondent had sought
precisely the same relief in an earlier application which had been
rejected by Puranik, J. Two days after the rejection of the group of bail
applications l!y Puranik, J., the pending application was disposed of by
Suresh J., who directed that the respondent be enlarged on bail, on
certain conditions which amounted to virtual house arrest.
Before this Court the appellant-State has assailed the l'ropriety of
the order granting bail passed by Suresh, J. just two· days after
Puranik, J. bad rejected the batch of bail applications. On the other
hand, it was contended on behalf of the respodeni that this Court should
refrain from _exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 to cancel bail
granted by the High Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: (1) It is true that ordinarily this Court does not interfere
with an order granting bail; but in the facts of this case the Court feels
that judicial discipline will be sacrificed at the alter of judicial discre·
tion if the Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution. [322C)
315
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
(2) When the batch of bail applications were put up before
Puranik, J., his attention was not drawn to the pendency of one more
such application. Even if the said application was filed after the hearing
started before Puranik, J., the learned Judge could have been told
about its pendency before he rendered his decision. This conduct of the
respondent has given rise to the argument that the respondent desired
to keep the question regarding his enlargement on bail alive,, [320B-C]
(3) What is important to realise is that in the bail application
before Suresh, J. the respondent made an identical' request made
earlier in an application placed before Puranik, J. Once that applica-
tion was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer.
That is virtually overuling the earlier decision without there being a
C change in the fact-situation, which would mean a substantial change
having a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic
changes which are of little or no consequence. [3210-E]
( 4) Judicial discipline, propriety and comity demanded that the
D 'impugned order should not have been passed reversing all earlier
orders including the one rendered by Puranik, J., only a couple of
days before, in the absence of any substantial change in the fact-
situation. [321F]
(5) In such a situation the proper course is to direct that the
E matter be placed before the same learned Judge who disposed of the
earlier applications. Such a practice or convention would prevent an
impression being created that a litigant is avoiding or selecting a court
to secure an order of his liking.
Shahzad Hasan Khan v.lshtiaq Hasan Khan, [1987] 2 SCC 684,
F
referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 603 of 1989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.1989 of the Bombay High
G Court in Crl. Application No. 995 of 1989.
H
B.R. Handa and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant.
Ram Jethmalani, P.K. Dey, Ms. Rani Jethmalani (N.P.) and
D. M. N argolkar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. B.S. RAO {AHMADI, J.]
317
AHMADI, J. Special leave granted. Heard counsel on both
sides. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:
On May 30, 1988, the reExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.