“The present case is an example as to how insubordination and judicial impropriety coupled with fraud upon court by suppression of facts while obtaining order, could lead to a miscarriage of justice,” the Court said.
The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court recently month pulled up a sessions judge at Osmanabad for showing insubordination and not adhering to an order of the High Court. [Ramchandra Maruti Yedage v. State of Maharashtra]
The utter disregard shown by the sessions judge also prompted Justice RM Joshi to emphasise that judicial conduct is the very fibre on which the confidence of people in the justice delivery system depends.
“The trial courts are expected to maintain judicial propriety and ensure that there is no insubordination of the Higher Court in any manner,” the High Court said.
Justice Joshi further observed that lawyers and public prosecutors, being officers of the Court, also share equal responsibility to be honest and fair, and to not suppress facts before courts.
“Unfortunately, the present case is an example as to how insubordination and judicial impropriety coupled with fraud upon court by suppression of facts while obtaining order, could lead to a miscarriage of justice,” the High Court judge opined.
The Court proceeded to suo motu quash the sessions judge order in question.
The Court was dealing with a plea by one, Ramchandra Yedage, a man undergoing trial in a murder case.
In his petition before the High Court, Yedage challenged a district judge’s refusal to accept his surety, after he was granted bail by another judge of the sessions court.
Justice Joshi noted that the sessions court order granting bail to Yedage was against a High Court order that had directed the him to approach the High Court for bail and not the trial court.
The High Court had earlier rejected Yedage’s bail plea while granting him liberty to approach the High Court again if his trial was not completed in 6 months.
Pertinently, the High Court had left no discretion to the sessions judge to grant bail, Justice Joshi noted.
Despite this High Court order, the accused eventually moved for bail before an in-charge sessions judge, GP Agrawal.
Notably, the bail plea failed to mention the High Court order. Justice Joshi noted that the State government also did not highlight the High Court’s earlier order.
Coupled with this apparent suppression of facts, Justice Joshi found that the sessions judge in charge also overlooked the High Court’s earlier directive.
“The sessions judge also seemed to have completely overlooked the direction that liberty was not given to move an application for bail before the trial court. The order passed by the in-charge special judge on the face of it shows that in utter disregard to the order passed by this Court bail application came to be entertained and allowed” the High Court said.
Justice Joshi deduced that there was a suppression of facts and that a fraud had been committed upon the court.
Therefore, the High Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and quashed the bail order.
In doing so, Justice Joshi also appreciated district and sessions judge, Vishwas Ganpat Mohite, who had refused to accept surety after the bail order had been passed.
“Learned District and Sessions Judge, Osmanabad was alert and vigilant to the occurrences around and most importantly did not turn blind eye towards them. He, instead of giving undue importance to procedure rightly prioritized prevention of abuse of process of law over technicalities. This act deserves appreciation, as without such positive step, the order in question would certainly have gone unnoticed,” the High Court observed.
