Order on Application for Leave to Special Appeal No. 1 of 2021
1. Cause shown is sufficient.
2. Application for Leave to Special Appeal is allowed.
3. The other defects pointed out by Stamp Reporter are technical in nature, therefore, the same are condoned.
4. Registry is directed to give regular number to this special appeal.
Order on Memo of Appeal
1. Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma, Advocate for appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.
2. The appellant is aggrieved only by the directions passed by learned Single Judge in Paragraphs-12, 13 and 14 of the impugned order dated 14.12.2020 while rejecting Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43160 of 2020. For reference, the directions mentioned in Paragraphs-12, 13 and 14, are reproduced hereunder:
"12. This Court directs the courts below in the State of Uttar Pradesh to attend the issue of criminal antecedent(s) of accused persons while deciding bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and give a complete detail of the criminal antecedent(s), if any, of the applicant(s)/accused before them or record the fact that there are no criminal antecedent(s) of the said person(s) if there are none.
13. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to communicate this order to all the District and Sessions Judges of the State, who shall ensure the immediate implementation of this order by the courts in their jurisdiction.
14. The Registrar General shall ensure compliance of this order in its true spirit and submit a report of compliance before this Court by 29.1.2021."
3. Sri Samir Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for appellant, submits that aforesaid directions are beyond the scope of jurisdiction of bail application and nature of directions which are administrative in nature do fall under the executive and administrative business of the Court as provided under Chapter III of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of Court, 1952") and in the peculiar circumstances the special appeal is maintainable even when directions are passed by learned Single Judge while exercising power in criminal jurisdiction. In support of his submission learned Senior Advocate relied on judgments of Apex Court in Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon vs. Irtiza Hussain, 2010(14) SCC 564 (Para 19) and Ram Bharosey vs. State of U.P., 2010(1) SCC 722 (Para 15).
4. We have heard the instant special appeal on merits without issuing notice to Respondent-1 as we are not entering into merit of the order, whereby the bail application of Respondent-1 was rejected. We are entertaining this special appeal against an order passed in a bail application only for the purpose of examining whether the directions passed by learned Single Judge in Paragraphs-12, 13 and 14 of the impugned order, whereby certain directions, which are administrative in nature, are beyond the criminal jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
5. We are in agreement with the submission of learned Senior Advocate that in peculiar circumstances of present case special appeal could be maintainable even when directions are passed in a judgment of one Judge made in exercise of criminal jurisdiction, as the impugned directions are administrative in nature and likely to affect administration of justice.
6. In the case of State Rep. By The Inspector of Police vs M. Murugesan and another, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 34 in similar circumstances the Apex Court has set aside the directions passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras in regard to constituting a Heterogeneous Committee of named persons to give its recommendations on the reforms that can be brought into practice for reformation, rehabilitation and re-integration of the convict/ accused persons to society and best practices for improving the quality of investigation while considering a matter pertaining to grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court held in Para 11 of the judgment as under:
"11. We find that learned Single Judge has collated data from the State and made it part of the order after the decision of the bail application as if the Court had the inherent jurisdiction to pass any order under the guise of improving the criminal justice system in the State. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 439 of the Code is limited to grant or not to grant bail pending trial. Even though the object of the Hon'ble Judge was laudable but the jurisdiction exercised was clearly erroneous. The effort made by the Hon'ble Judge may be academically proper to be presented at an appropriate forum but such directions could not be issued under the colour of office of the Court."
7. In the case in hand, learned Single Judge while dealing a matter pertaining to grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. passed the above referred impugned directions though on merits bail application was rejected. The directions issued by learned Single Judge may be in the interest of administration of justice, however the jurisdiction exercised was not appropriate and such direction could not be issued while exercising jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
8. In view of above, we find that the directions passed in Paragraphs- 12, 13 and 14 of impugned order dated 14.12.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43160 of 2020 are not sustainable in law and, therefore, are set aside. However, it is expected from the Trial Court that criminal antecedents of an accused, may not be a sole ground for rejection of bail, but being an important and relevant factor, be taken into account while deciding bail application.
9. Consequently, the special appeal is disposed of.