'Persistent Defiance': Allahabad High Court Mulls Contempt Action Against Judicial Officers For Imposing Excessive Bail Sureties

On Thursday, a bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar observed that despite repeated directions from the Supreme Court and the High Court, specifically in the case of Bachchi Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr, the Judges continue to pass orders that disregard the financial reality of the accused.

The observation came while hearing a petition filed by one Pappu Met @ Pappu, who moved the HC challenging an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly.

It was his case that the trial court had granted him bail on the condition of furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh and two sureties of the like amount.

This was even though the main co-accused in the same case, from whom the stolen cattle were recovered, had been released on a much lower bond of Rs. 25,000, with two sureties each in the like amount.

It was his contention that he is a person of extremely limited means and is financially incapable of arranging sureties of such a substantial amount. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned bail order may be modified accordingly, enabling the petitioner to come out of jail.

Importantly, his counsel referred to HC's recent judgment in Bachchi Devi (supra), whereby explicit directions were given to the Judges of the District Court(s) with respect to grant of bail and surety(s) directed to be furnished by the accused.

For context, in the Bachchi Devi case, the HC had directed that the accused(s)/convict(s), as the case may be, should be released on a 'single surety', subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate or the court concerned. It had added that the satisfaction shall be derived from the socio-economic condition of the accused and that the surety bond amount be fixed in accordance with the financial strength of the accused.

At the outset, the Court has sought an explanation from the concerned judicial officers as to why the binding guidelines issued in Bachchi Devi (supra) were not followed.

The single judge also highlighted that this was not a "stand-alone case" and that he was regularly receiving applications seeking modification of bail orders passed in "clear defiance" of the Bachchi Devi judgment.

In fact, this defiance persisted despite the Registrar General circulating the judgment to all District Judges on November 4, 2025, for strict compliance.

Therefore, the High Court also sought assistance from the Registrar General to ascertain whether such lapses amount to the Judges committing "contempt of their own court" or if they fall within a "wilful, negligent, or callous approach".

Taking a grim view of the lower court's order in the present case, Justice Diwakar observed that it was prima facie evident that the concerned Judge had either not properly understood the directions or was "otherwise not willing to adhere to the directions".

The Court remarked that it was "indeed distressing—even inconsistent with dignity—for this Court to so much as whisper about initiating contempt proceedings against its own judicial officers."

Noting that the District Judges enjoy a distinct and elevated status in society, entrusted even with the jurisdiction to pronounce capital punishment, the High Court nonetheless firmly stated that "judicial discipline is not a matter of choice; it is a constitutional imperative".

The bench underscored that judicial morality demands that every Judge, irrespective of rank, faithfully follows the law declared by the Constitutional Courts.

"The conduct of Judges does not remain confined to the four walls of the courtroom; it shapes public perception of the justice-delivery system," the order read.

"The persistent and repeated defiance of the orders passed by Constitutional Court(s) has compelled this Court to consider appropriate measures to address such continued contumacy," the Court further stated.

Thus, the Court posted the matter for December 18, along with the compliance report to be submitted by the District Judge Bareilly. Compliance must be made in letter and spirit, the court added.

So far as the prayer made in present petition is concerned, the impugned order was modified to the extent that the petitioner be released on his executing personal bond of Rs.5K/- and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court, or alternatively in view of guidelines issued by Supreme Court In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 483].