The Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually rapped a Special Court judge in Bathinda for rejecting a bail plea in a drugs case despite an earlier stay order passed by the High Court. The Bench asserted that the order illustrated total non-application of judicial mind and cast a shadow on the presiding officer’s judicial acumen.
Allowing the bail petition, Justice Surya Partap Singh directed the forwarding of the order’s copy to the Administrative Judge of the Bathinda Sessions Division for perusal. “Before parting ways with this order, it shall be appropriate to note here that the order dated April 17, passed by the Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, is the example of total non-application of judicial mind, casting a shadow on the judicial acumen of the presiding officer,” the Bench observed.
The case has its origins in an FIR registered on February 10, 2019, at Dayalpura police station in Bathinda district under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The FIR was lodged following the recovery of 15,500 tablets of Tramadol from an accused. During investigation, two more persons were also implicated.
Justice Surya Partap Singh noted that the trial culminated in conviction of an accused and the acquittal of the other two vide judgment dated May 9, 2023. While pronouncing the judgment, the Special Judge made adverse observations regarding the petitioner’s role after he was examined as defence witness during the trial.
The trial court observed: “The role of the defence witness has not been properly investigated by the police during investigation. He does not have any record of employment of the accused. It is his admission that he supplied the contraband to the accused. There is a prima-facie evidence that he was instrumental in supplying the contraband to the accused without providing any bill to him. The Investigating Officer did not conduct the investigation regarding the role played by the defence witness in the commission of crime. Therefore, copy of judgment be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda with the direction to investigate his role and take action as per law.”
Challenging the observations and directions, the witness approached the High Court through another petition. The Bench, during the hearing, then observed that the additional accused was summoned without invoking the provisions of Section 319 CrPC. The Bench also stayed the operation of the May 9, 2023, judgment insofar as it concerned the directions concerning the witness
Taking up the matter, Justice Surya Partap Singh asserted the Special Judge dismissed the bail plea filed by the petitioner-witness, despite its March 24 order staying the operation of the directions. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecution itself stemmed from directions whose operation had already been stayed by the High Court and that the trial court’s refusal of bail was the result of non-application of judicial mind and an incorrect appreciation of the relevant legal position.
Accepting the contention, Justice Surya Partap Singh asserted: “In view of the fact that at initial stage any challan against the petitioner was not filed by the investigating agency and that the operation of order dated May 9, 2023, with regard to prosecution of petitioner has been stayed, it is hereby held that there cannot be any justification in detaining the petitioner in judicial custody.”
The court further held: “In my opinion, the trial Court committed a grave error of judgment when it failed to appreciate that the very foundation of prosecution of the petitioner stands vanished and therefore, his detention in judicial lock up is illegal.”
The Court observed that the petition deserved to be allowed and granted him relief without commenting on the merits of the case.
