Why Allahabad High Court Said District Courts, Advocates Sometimes Misinterpret SC's 'Satender Kumar Antil' Verdict?

In an order passed on Monday, the Allahabad High Court expressed concern that district courts and advocates sometimes misinterpret the Supreme Court's judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation LL 2021 SC 550, leading to confusion in bail proceedings. A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the Supreme Court's directions in Satender Kumar Antil were applicable only after the filing of the charge sheet and not for bail applications during investigation, a point which is often misunderstood by district courts. "The Apex Court…issued…direction to district courts to decide the bail application of the accused after filing of final police report (charge sheet), regarding all four categories of cases, including cases punishable up to 7 years and not for the bail applications during investigation", Justice Deshwal clarified as he quoted from the Top Court's verdict. For context, in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Apex Court had issued guidelines to trial courts and High Courts to keep them in mind while considering the bail applications. In this case, the Top court had issued guidelines on the aspect of grant of bail to accused who are not arrested during investigation on charge sheet being filed. The HC also directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Director, JTRI to inform judicial officers about the ratio of the 2022 judgment. Briefly put, the bench was dealing with a bail plea filed by a man inter alia accused of committing the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide. During the hearing of the matter and in its scrutiny of the case papers, the Court found indication of manipulation in medical and police records. Essentially, the Court examined medical reports showing that the injured victim's CT scan revealed a a grievous skull injury, however, in the X-ray conducted nearly a month later, no such fracture was found. Justice Deshwal called this discrepancy 'absolutely improbable' and questioned the IO as to how he had filed a charge sheet for the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide when the injury report indicated a clear skull fracture which warranted invocation of offence of attempt to murder. "…the concerned I.O. hurriedly submitted the charge sheet under Section 308 I.P.C. only, on the basis of incorrect Xray report which was in contradiction to the earlier CT Scan report", the Court observed. Taking a stern view of this, the Court directed the SSP Firozabad to conduct an enquiry against the investigating officer and take appropriate action if negligence was found. Similarly, the HC also asked the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Firozabad, to probe whether the X-ray report had been manipulated just to show that no fracture is found in the skull of injured despite the fact same is detected in CT scan. The bench also noted that serious negligence on part of the doctor who conducted the tests, however, it refrained from taking punitive action due to his retirement. But, a cost of ₹10,000, was imposed upon him to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Firozabad. The Court emphasized that for the administration of criminal justice, police officers and all public servants, including doctors, must perform their duties fairly. "Any negligence or unfairness by a public servant involved in the criminal justice system can undermine public trust in the State, ultimately defeating the important objectives of the Constitution of India. It is the responsibility of higher officials in every government department to eliminate inefficiencies from the system in order to maintain integrity and fairness, particularly in the criminal justice system". In its order, the single judge acknowledged Sessions Judge, Firozabad, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh for rejecting the bail application of the accused earlier, despite the offence being incorrectly classified as punishable up to seven years, after thoughtfully considering the evidence in the case diary including the CT scan report. The Court, however, granted bail to the applicant considering that the charge sheet had already been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and that further custodial interrogation was not required.Case title - Krishna Alias Kishna vs. State of U.PCitation : Click Here To Read/Download Order

Why Allahabad High Court Said District Courts, Advocates Sometimes Misinterpret SC's 'Satender Kumar Antil' Verdict?

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags