TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication was rejected by the High Court on 29th September, 1988. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 but that writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 8th December, 1988. In the meantime, he had preferred an application dated 21st November, 1988 for transfer of his case to another learned Judge and for grant of bail. While granting the prayer for transfer the Division Bench refused to enlarge the respondent on bail by its order dated 19th December, 1988. Soon thereafter on 18th January, 1989, the respondent filed the third application for bail which too was rejected by Suresh, J. Having thus failed to secure enlargement on bail the respondent approached the learned Sessions Judge, Bombay for a direction to the jail authorities that he be produced before the Head of the Orthopaedic Department of J. J. Hospital as he had some spinal pain. The respondent also moved a separate application for being admitted to the Naval Hospital. The learned Sessions Judge acceded to his request and got him examined by Dr. Dongaonkar who submitted his report on 3rd February, 1989. On 10th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or disability complained of, the nature of the treatment required, the certificates given by the Doctors, I am of the opinion that the bail order made by the High Court appears to be a bit out of the ordinary. The learned vacation judge then directed notice to issue and stayed the operation of the High Court's judgment of 8th June, 1989. While doing so, he observed that the respondent should be given necessary treatment of Yogic exercises in the Jail. Therefore, since the passing of this order on 15th June, 1989, the operation of the High Court's order enlarging the respondent on bail and placing him in virtual house arrest on the terms and conditions set out in the court's order, is stayed. 3. The learned Counsel for the State of Maharashtra contended that the learned judge in the High Court while passing the impugned order of 8th June, 1989 ought to have realised that only two days before his colleague Puranik, J. had rejected all the pending bail applications (except Criminal Application No. 995/89) preferred at intervals by the respondent. In Criminal Application No. 375/89 one of the prayers made in paragraph 7(e) was as under: That the applicant may, pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that is, on the ground that he was suffering from spinal disorder. He was first admitted to the J. J. Hospital and was later shifted to G. T. Hospital open ward on his request. After improvement to the extent of 70% and above was reported by Dr. Dongaonkar who treated him and on Dr. Khadilkar declaring him fit to attend the court, he contended that he had consulted a yoga instructor who advised him a course in yogic exercises to get rid of his spinal disorder. In the meantime he had filed a number of applications for being released on bail. This batch of applications were put up before Puranik, J. for disposal. The attention of Puranik, J. was not drawn to the pendency of one such application No. 995/89 till he disposed of the batch of such bail applications on 6th June, 1989. 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 on 6th June, 1989. 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. We have pointed out that in one of the applications No. 375/89 he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 995/89 otherwise he would have disposed it of by the very same common Order. Before the ink was dry on Puranik, J.'s order, it was upturned by the impugned order. It is not as if the court passing the impugned order was not aware of the decision of Puranik, J.; in fact there is a reference to the same in the impugned order. Could this be done in the absence of new facts and changed circumstances? What is important to realise is that in Criminal Application No. 375 of 1989, the respondent had made an identical request as is obvious from open of the prayers (extracted earlier) made therein. Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being change in the fact-situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. Between the two orders there was a gap of only two days and it is nobody's case that during these two days drastic changes had taken place necessitating the release of the respondent on bail. Judicial discipline, propriety and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
