KASHI NATH ROYversusSTATE OF BIHAR

A                                 KASH! NATH ROY
                                             v.
                                  STATE OF BIHAR

                                    APRIL 18, 19%

B                  [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-
c   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         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.
F
          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 :
G
           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 B
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           c
names of the accused committing the crime to the Investigating officer,
which fact the appellant verified from the case-diary to be correct. Viewing
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
    560                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   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
B   innocence of an accused" gets jeopardized; and the structural principle of
    "not guilty '.ill proved guilty" gets destroyed, even though all sane elements
    have always understood that such views are tentative and not final, so as
    lo affect the merit of the matter. Here, the appellant has been caught and
    exposed to a certain adverse comment and action solely because in reason-
C   ing he had disclosed his mind while granting bail. This may have been
    avoidable on his part, but in terms not such a glaring mistake or im-
    propriety so as to visit the remarks that the High Court has chosen to pass
    o'n him as well as to initiate action against him, as proposed.

D          It cannot be forgotten that in our system, like elsewhere, appellate
    and revisional courts have been set up on the pre-supposition that lo\ver
    courts would in some measure of cases go wrong in decision-making) both
    on facts as also on law, and they have been knit-up lo correct those orders.
    The human element injusticing being an import"hl element, computer-like
    functioning cannot be expected of the courts; however hard they may try
E   and keep themselves precedent-trodden in the scope of discretions and in
    the manner of judging. Whenever any such intolerable error is detected by
    or pointed out to a superior court, it is functionally required to correct that
    error and n1ay, here and there, in an appropriate case, and in a manner
    befitting, maintaining the dignity of the Court and independence of
r   judiciary, convey its message in its judgment to the officer concerned
'   through a process of reasoning, essenlially persuasive, reasonable, mellow
    but clear, and result-orienting, but rarely a.:; a rebuke. Sharp reaction of
    the kind exhibited in the afore- extraction is not in keeping with institution-
    Jl functioning. The premise that a .Judge committed a mistake or an error
    beyond the limits of tolerance, is no ground to inflict condemnation on the
G   Judge-Subordinate, unless there existed something else and for exceptional
    grounds.


         We should therefore think, without such ado, that the High Court
    was unkind to the appellant and therefore the afore-paragraph deserves to
H   be and is hereby pulled out from the orders of the High Court dated


                                                                                      •
                               KN. ROYi-. STATE                           561

    28.1.1993 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12034 of 1991 titled Lala     A
    Pandey v. State of Bihar and 3 Others, decided by the High Court of Patna,
    as well as all other references in the said order which tell upon the
    fucctioning of the appellant.

           We thus conclude resisting the temptation to say any more.
                                                                                 B
           The appeal is allowed.

    G.N.                                                     Appeal allowed.




-