Holding

Cancellation of bail on the ground of misrepresentation must be decided by the same judge who granted bail, and a coordinate bench of the same High Court cannot entertain an appeal against that order.

Summary

Harjeet Singh, charged under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the IPC, applied for bail which was denied by the trial court but granted by a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The State filed a separate application before another High Court judge seeking cancellation of the bail on the ground that the original order was based on a misconception of facts. That judge cancelled the bail, prompting an appeal by the accused. The Supreme Court held that cancellation of bail on the basis of misrepresentation must be placed before the same judge who granted bail and that a coordinate bench of the same High Court cannot entertain an appeal against another bench’s order. The Court emphasized the need for judicial discipline and consistency in bail matters. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the order cancelling bail was set aside.

Issues considered

Can a High Court judge sit in appeal against an order granting bail passed by a coordinate bench of the same High Court?
Whether cancellation of bail on the ground of misrepresentation must be decided by the same judge who originally granted bail?
Whether the order cancelling bail was illegal and contrary to judicial discipline?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 439
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302/34, s. 307/34

Subjects

bailcancellation of bailjudicial disciplinemisrepresentationcoordinate benchescriminal procedureappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

A HARJEET SINGH @ SEETA
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

DECEMBER 6, 2001

B [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
c 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

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-
F 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]
G
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. B

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 c
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. D
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 E
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 F
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,
G
J., who allowed the same by observing as under:-

''The bail appears to have been allowed to Harjeet Singh @ Seeta only
on the feeling that there was only one injury on the head, whereas
infact there were three injuries on the head and those injuries have been
attributed to Harject Singh, Gurbax Singh and Jaspal Singh. The H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A 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
B
cancelled and he is ordered to be taken into custody."

That order is challenged by filing this appeal.

Learned senior counsel Mr. Jain appearing for the appellant submitted
that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is totally illegal, unjus-
c tified and erroneous and was not consistent with judicial discipline.

In our view, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant
is justified one. It was not open to the other Judge of the High Court to sit in
appeal against the order passed by co-ordinate bench of the same Court. If the
D 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. In any case, for cancellation of the bail on the ground
of mis-representation or mis-statement, the matter ought to have been placed
before the same Judge.

B The law on this aspect is well settled. In Shahzad Hasan Khan v. lshtiaq
Hasan Khan and Anr., (1987] 2 SCC 684, while dealing with the subsequent
bail application, this Court observed, "normally this Court does not interfere
with bail matters and the orders of the High Court are generally accepted to
be final relating to'grant or rejection of bail." Thereafter, the Court stated that
longstanding convention and judicial discipline require that subsequent bail
F
application ought to have been placed before the same Judge who had passed
earlier orders. Placing of such matter before the same Judge has its roots in
principle as 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 file successive
G 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 conflicting orders. The Court finally observed that
judicial discipline requires that such matters should be placed before the same
Judge, if he is available for orders. Same principle is required to be followed
H even for setting aside the order passed by the Court granting bail on the ground
HARJEET SINGH v. STATE [SHAH, J.] 497
of mis-representation or mis-statement or suppression of some facts. A
Further, in Vikramjit SinRh v. State of Mculhya Pradesh, [1992] Supp 3
SCC 62, dealing with similar situation, this Court observed as under:-

" .. No bench can comment on the functioning of a co-ordinate
bench of the same court, much less sit in the judgment as an appellate B
court over its decision. That which could not be done directly could
also not be done indirectly. Otherwise, a party aggrieved by an order
passed by one bench of the High Court would be tempted to attempt
to get the matter reopened before another bench, and there would not
be any end to such attempts. Besides, it was not consistent with the
judicial discipline which must be maintained by courts both in the
c
interest of administration of justice by assuring the binding nature of
an order which becomes final, and the faith of the people in the
judiciary... "

In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order is D
set aside. It would be open to the State Government or the aggrieved party to
approach the Court for cancellation of bail on the ground of any objectionable
conduct on the part of the accused and/or by pointing out that the order granting
bail was obtained by suppression of material fact and in such case matter may
be placed before the same Judge, who granted bail, if available.
E
N.J. Appeal allowed.