Madhya Pradesh High Court Warns Lower Court Judge For Allegedly Denying Bail On Caste Lines

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently warned an Additional Sessions Judge for allegedly showing bias by denying bail to the Applicant whose case was on a better footing than his co-accused who was granted bail despite recovery of stolen property. Taking strong exception to the conduct of the lower court judge, Justice Vivek Agarwal held- Let warning be issued to the concerned Judge Shri Prashant Shukla, First Additional Session Judge, Maihar, District Satna and copy of this order and warning be placed in his service book to be more cautious and judicious in his approach in future so that image of the judiciary can be saved and such allegations of casteism and bias are not allowed to be levied so to tarnish collective image of judiciary.The case of the Applicant was that he was a co-accused for offences punishable U/S 380, 401, 414, 457, 34 IPC. He submitted that he had moved a bail application before lower court but the same was rejected. He argued that he was charged with the said offences based on the memorandum given by another co-accused from whom the stolen property was recovered. The Applicant further informed the Court that while the said co-accused was granted bail by the same court purely on caste lines, he was denied the benefit of bail. By not maintaining parity, the Applicant asserted, the lower court exercised its discretion in arbitrary and illegal manner. Considering the submissions of the parties and examining the documents on record, the Court observed that prima facie there was substance in the allegations made by the Applicant- Taking into consideration the material reproduced above, it is a fact that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Prashant Shukla had granted bail to the co- accused from whose possession, a stolen property was recovered but denied bail to the present applicant, prima facie substantiates the allegations made by learned counsel for the applicant. Considering the fact that case of the present applicant is on better footing than Ajay @ Guddu Mishra from whom, a stolen property was recovered, the bail is extended to the present applicant. With the aforesaid observations, the Court granted bail to the Applicant and accordingly, the application was allowed.Case Title: INDRAJEET PATEL v. THE STATE OF M.P.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 109Click Here To Read/Download Order

Madhya Pradesh High Court Warns Lower Court Judge For Allegedly Denying Bail On Caste Lines

Zeeshan Thomas

Tags