'Judicial Indiscipline': P&H High Court Orders Probe Into Trial Judge Who Granted Interim & Absolute Pre-Arrest Bail In Same Case On Same Day

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged an instance of "judicial indiscipline" after an Additional Sessions Judge passed two distinct orders in the same case on the same day. Suggesting "thorough investigation", the Court has directed the Registrar General to put the file before the concerned Administrative judge.

The Additional Session Judge of Faridabad in a forgery case first orally pronounced an order granting interim-anticipatory bail, but later, passed an order on the same day granting absolute pre-arrest bail.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "Amazingly, this Court finds it illogical to the extent of judicial indiscipline on the part of Ms. Jyoti Lamba, Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad in recording two orders of even date without following due procedure as envisaged for the purpose of considering anticipatory bail petitions."

Perusing the explanation sought by the Court from the judge, the bench noted that, "it would make it ample clear that the judicial officer has pronounced an oral order having of the opinion that accused at the first instance be directed to join the investigation but later on she reached to an opinion that it is a case to be allowed and accordingly the order dated 19.11.2024...came to be passed granting the accused absolute anticipatory bail at the first instance itself."

The development comes while hearing a plea seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to an accused under Sections 465, 467, 468, 473 IPC.

It was alleged that the accused Priyanka Kumari forged an agreement to seek a property and also put the stamp and signatures of the Sub Registrar, Faridabad, on documents.

During the hearing, it was highlighted that the accused Priyanka Kumari moved an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the instant FIR, which came to be heard by Jyoti Lamba, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 19.11.2024.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the noting of that date made by the Judicial Officer properly in her own handwriting stating that case is documentary based and interim bail was granted to the accused subject to joining the investigation within three days and on furnishing Rs 50,000 as surety of the like amount.

Later on, in the day, it transpired that another order of even date i.e. 19.11.2024 was uploaded on the web portal of the Court, passed by Jyoti Lamba, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad running into 12 pages granting an absolute anticipatory bail to the accused observing that it is not the case falling under the category of “serious offence” but a civil dispute given the colour of criminal nature and recording its inclination to grant bail, he added.

Hence, the Court called for an explanation from the Judge, and a reply was also sought from the state. Pursuing both, it found that the allegations were true.

It further noted that the anticipatory bail was granted subject to the condition of joining the investigation and furnishing of surety of Rs 50,000. As per State's submission, neither the accused joined the investigation nor did she furnish any surety. Consequently, the Court cancelled the anticipatory bail.

Justice Moudgil further opined that the conduct of the Judicial Officer, which is not only to be deprecated but demands thorough investigation into the matter and accordingly, it directed the Registrar General to place the case file along with a copy of the order before the Administrative Judge, Faridabad for consideration and necessary action as deemed appropriate.

Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Guglani, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. H.S. Jugait, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Title: RAKHI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Click here to read/download the order