April 04, 2001 : The Chhattisgarh High Court rebuked a lower court for arbitrarily denying bail to an accused who was not named in either the First Information Report (FIR) or the dying declaration of the victim. Justice R.S. Garg described the lower court’s decision as “whimsical” and “capricious,” emphasizing that judicial officers must act consistently and with fairness when considering bail applications.
The case stemmed from Crime No. 8/2001 registered at Somani Police Station, Rajnandgaon, under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant, who was not mentioned in the FIR or the dying declaration, was arrested later and his bail plea was twice rejected by the Additional Sessions Court.
Justice Garg noted that three other accused, who were specifically named and identified by the complainant, had already been granted bail by another judge on January 30, 2001. Despite this, the applicant’s bail was rejected on February 15, 2001, without any new incriminating evidence against him. The High Court observed that the only mention of the applicant’s name appeared in the memorandum of a co-accused a statement that is inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act when used against another accused.
“The grant of bail to some of the accused should persuade a judicial officer to consider bail for others if the allegations are identical or not materially different,” Justice Garg said. “It would be a height of judicial impropriety to say that because some Judge had granted bail to some of the co-accused, the same order would not benefit another co-accused before another Judge.”
The Court emphasized that judicial consistency is essential and that decisions should not depend on which judge happens to preside over a matter. Justice Garg cautioned that insubordination or casting insinuations against a fellow judge would not be tolerated, describing such conduct as “unpalatable” to the court.
Criticizing the lower court’s casual approach, the High Court found no substantive material linking the applicant to the assault and ordered his immediate release on bail. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 7,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon.
The Registry was instructed to forward a copy of the order to the concerned Additional Sessions Judge through the District and Sessions Judge for necessary awareness and compliance.
With this ruling, the High Court reinforced that the principle of parity in bail decisions must be upheld and that lower courts are expected to follow legal precedent rather than personal discretion.
Case Reference : Misc. Criminal Case No. 805/2001, Deepak Kumar Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh; Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant: Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Advocate; Counsel for the Non-Applicant/State: Shri Ashish Shukla, Government Advocate.
