TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow. Hence this order articulating our reasons. 2. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, respondent No. 1 and three others, namely, Naseem, Shiva Kant Sharma and Asghar are facing trial for the murder of Zaheer Hasan Khan at about 9.00 a.m. on March 3, 1985, in a public place in Mahmood Nagar leather market. After the occurrence respondent No. 1 absconded and he surrendered in court on April 22, 1985. He applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, which was rejected. He approached the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Allahabad with an application for grant of bail. The application was opposed by the complainant and as well as by the Public Prosecutor. Justice Kamleshwar Nath by his order dated September 18, 1985 refused to enlarge the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn. 3. Meanwhile, one of the accused Shiva Kant Sharma filed an application for transfer of the trial from the court of the First Additional Sessions Judge to any other court. The complainant had also filed an application in the High Court for the cancellation of bail granted to Shiva Kant Sharma. Respondent No. 1 also made an application from jail for the transfer of the case. All the three miscellaneous cases were heard by D.N. Jha, J. By a composite order dated 10.12.1985, Justice D.N. Jha refused to transfer the case and he further refused to cancel the bail granted to Shiva Kant Sharma. The learned Judge, however, made observations that the trial should be concluded expeditiously and if necessary the court should hold day-to-day tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d his order dated June 3, 1986 for placing the matter before Kamleshwar Nath and enlarged the respondent No. 1 on bail. Aggrieved, Shahzad Hasan Khan the complainant, who is the son of the deceased Zaheer Hasan Khan, has approached this Court by means of this appeal. 4. 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. In this case, however, there are some disturbing features which have persuaded us to interfere with the order of the High Court. The matrix of facts detailed above would show that three successive bail applications made on behalf of respondent No. 1 had been rejected and disposed of finally by Justice Kamleshw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier orders, who was available as Vacation Judge. 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 in as much 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 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 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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved which is the case in every criminal case more particularly in a murder case where a citizen who let alone losing liberty has lost his very life. Another ground for granting bail was that trial was delayed therefore the accused was entitled to bail. This also cannot be helped if a litigant is encouraged to make half a dozen applications on the same point without any new factor having arisen after the first was rejected. Had the learned Judge granted time to the complainant for filing counter affidavit, correct facts would have been placed before the Court and it could have been pointed out that apart from the inherent danger of tampering with or intimidating witnesses and aborting case, there was also the danger to the life of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd they were being threatened with dire consequences and they requested the court for being granted police protection. One of the salutary principles in granting bail is that the court should be satisfied that the accused being enlarged on bail will 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 (they can seldom be proved by concrete evidence) and if the allegations are not found to be concocted it would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction in enlarging the accused on bail. In the instant case there were serious allegations but the learned Judge did not either consider or test the same. 7. Having r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
