“When courts grant bail to one accused but deny it to another in similar circumstances without offering clear and reasoned justifications for the disparity, it creates an impression of unpredictability. Such practices can lead to uncertainty and erode public confidence in the judicial process.”
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court recently remarked that granting bail to one accused while denying it to another under similar circumstances, without clear justification, undermines public confidence in the judicial process.
Justice Krishan Pahal emphasized the importance of consistency in judicial proceedings, noting that inconsistent orders are frequently being issued.
“Once the liberty of an individual is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, courts must avoid issuing inconsistent orders to litigants. Inconsistency occurs when two cases with identical facts and circumstances receive different rulings, especially if the subsequent order does not explain why it deviated from the earlier one,” the Court observed.
The Court added that a failure to provide reasons for inconsistent orders might suggest that the decision was influenced by extraneous factors.
“When courts grant bail to one accused but deny it to another in similar circumstances without offering clear and reasoned justifications for the disparity, it creates an impression of unpredictability. Such practices can lead to uncertainty and erode public confidence in the judicial process.”
“This trust is eroded when judicial orders are inconsistent, creating an appearance of partiality or bias. Such inconsistency can lead to unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals, violating the principle of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This discrimination not only harms the individuals directly affected but also undermines public perception of the judicial system’s fairness and integrity.”
Advocate Sandeep Kumar Pandey represented the accused, while Advocate RP Patel represented the state.
The Court also noted that discriminatory practices in judicial actions constitute a serious breach of duty and gross misconduct by a judicial officer.
Judicial actions must be consistent with the law and follow fair procedures, the court added.
“If a judicial officer lacks knowledge of the basic principles of fairness in the judicial process, it reflects on their capability to hold judicial office. Acting for extraneous reasons violates judicial polity and conduct.”
The Court also commented that discriminatory practices in judicial actions constitute a serious breach of duty and gross misconduct by a judicial officer. Judicial actions must align with the law and follow fair procedures. If a judicial officer lacks basic knowledge of judicial fairness, it reflects poorly on their capability to hold judicial office. Acting based on extraneous considerations violates judicial policy and conduct.
These remarks were made while dealing with an anticipatory bail application in a case of physical assault and criminal intimidation. The accused, Abhishek Yadav, sought parity with the co-accused, who had been granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. Yadav argued that there were general allegations with no specific role assigned to anyone.
On May 8, the court sought an explanation from the trial judge for issuing inconsistent bail orders in the case. The trial judge explained that he had granted bail to six accused until the charge sheet was filed but denied bail to Yadav after learning that the High Court had denied bail to co-accused Vijay Bahadur. The judge claimed he was unaware of the High Court’s denial of bail to Bahadur when he granted bail to the other accused.
However, Justice Pahal noted that Yadav, the current applicant, was not named in the FIR and that the evidence against him was comparable to that against a co-accused who had been granted bail by the trial court.
READ ALSO: BREAKING | Manish Sisodia Bail Plea | Court Allows Early Hearing
“The records do not indicate any distinction between the case of applicant Abhishek Yadav and that of co-accused Sharda Prasad Yadav and Ritesh at Acchelal. Such inconsistency raises questions about the conduct of the judicial officer,” the Court stated, adding that the trial judge’s explanation was not mentioned in the bail orders.
Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to Yadav until the conclusion of the trial.
Case Title: Abhishek Yadav at Laloo vs. State of UP.
