http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1253 of 2001

PETITIONER:

HARJEET SINGH @ SEETA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/12/2001

BENCH:

M.B. Shah & B.N. Agrawal

JUDGMENT:

Shah, J.

Leave granted.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated

10.8.2001 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Crl.

Misc. No.10947-M of 2001, 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 IPC moved an

application for releasing him on bail. 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 shows that there was only one injury on the

head. The Court, therefore, observed that case for bail was made out.

Thereafter, informant 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 that similarly situated other accused

Jaspal 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, 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 Harjeet Singh, Gurbax Singh and Jaspal

Singh. The 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3

where bail could have been allowed to Harjeet Singh @

Seeta. So, this criminal miscellaneous petition is

allowed. Bail allowed to Harjeet Singh @ Seeta is

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, unjustified 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 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.

The law on this aspect is well settled. In Shahzad Hasan Khan

vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and another [(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 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

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 even for setting aside the

order passed by the Court granting bail on the ground of mis-

representation or mis-statement or suppression of some facts.

Further, in Vikramjit Singh vs. State of Madhya 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 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 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 set aside. It would be open to the State Government or the

aggrieved party to approach the Court for cancellation of bail on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3

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.

..J.

(M.B. SHAH)

..J.

(B. N. AGRAWAL)

December 6 , 2001.