Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appellant had joined the U.P.Higher Judicial Service as a direct
recruit on 14.12.1998 and was posted as VII Addl.District & Sessions Judge,
Deoria. The appellant, while working as Additional Sessions Judge at
Bareilly, declined bail to an accused, who was suspected to be in possession
of some stolen ornaments and jewellery. The accused was arrested by the
police while she was trying to sell the stolen property. The learned Sessions
Judge was of the view that the accused might have been possessing stolen
articles and the bail was rejected. This order was challenged by the accused
before the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court granted
bail to the accused and directed that notice be issued to the Sessions Judge
as to why he had declined bail to the accused and that which offence was
committed by the accused and thereafter notice was issued to the appellant
herein as to why
disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against him. The appellant
submitted his explanation in reply. Thereafter the learned single Judge
observed that no case was made out against the accused and the rejection of
the bail was unjustified and ordered that adverse remark of warning be
entered in the character roll of the appellant for passing careless orders on
the bail application. This order is under challenge before this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondent-High Court.
In our opinion, the learned single Judge was wrong in observing that
no offence was made out against the accused. A person suspected to be in
possession of stolen property may be alleged to have committed an offence
and the Sessions Judge was justified in declining bail, especially when there
was no proper explanation from the side of the accused. The learned single
Judge was not correct in arriving at such a view but we make it clear that we
do not want to make any observation against the accused at this stage on
merits nor do we observe anything against the grant of bail given by the
learned single Judge in the proceedings. However, the learned single Judge
of the High Court was not justified in making such adverse remarks against
the Sessions Judge especially when there is nothing to show on the part of
the Sessions Judge, that he was acting without any bonafide in
discharging his judicial functions.
The order of the learned single Judge is set aside as the same affects the
career of the appellant. The appeal is allowed accordingly.