The Punjab & Haryana High Court has taken strong objection to a case of sheer ‘judicial indiscipline’ as the bench put it, to an order of an Additional Sessions Judge, Ms Jyoti Lamba of Faridabad, who passed two distinct orders in the same case on the same day. Calling for a‘ thorough investigation’ the court has directed the Registrar General to file the matter before the Administrative Judge for appropriate action.

The Faridabad judge first pronounced an order orally granting interim-anticipatory bail in a matter, thereafter she passed an order granting absolute anticipatory bail in the same case on the same day.

Expressing his displeasure over such indiscipline, Justice Sandeep Moudgil remarked, "Amazingly, this Court finds it illogical to the extent of judicial indiscipline on the part of Ms. Jyoti Lamba, Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad in recording two orders of even date without following due procedure as envisaged for the purpose of considering anticipatory bail petitions."

Additionally, the bench added, "it would make it ample clear that the judicial officer has pronounced an oral order having of the opinion that accused at the first instance be directed to join the investigation but later on she reached to an opinion that it is a case to be allowed and accordingly the order dated 19.11.2024...came to be passed granting the accused absolute anticipatory bail at the first instance itself."

Facts:

The matter came up before the court as a plea for cancellation of anticipatory bail that was handed down to the respondent by way of an order dated 19.11.2024. An FIR was registered against the alleged accused under Sections 465, 467, 468, and 473 of the IPC.

On November 19, 2024, the trial court had orally pronounced an interim order granting anticipatory bail to the accused-respondent , Priyanka Kumari, on the condition that she joins investigation within three days and furnishes a bail bond of ₹50,000 with one surety.

However, later the same day, a second 12-page bail order was uploaded by the same judge, granting her absolute anticipatory bail. The final order held that the dispute appeared to be of a civil nature and that custodial interrogation was not necessary.

The High Court noted that the judge had not adhered to due process, especially since there had been no application moved for any modification or review of the interim relief granted earlier in the day.

The Court also took note of the fact that the complainant and the investigating officer had not been given an opportunity to respond to the final anticipatory bail plea. It further observed that the accused neither complied with the conditions of the interim order nor joined the investigation, yet the absolute bail was granted.

The High Court has now directed the Registrar General to place the entire case before the Administrative Judge of the Sessions Division, Faridabad.

Additionally, it has ordered the cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Priyanka Kumari, citing non-compliance with the earlier conditional relief.

Case Title: Rakhi v State of Haryana

Case no: CRM-M-61572-2024

Court: High Court of Punjab And Haryana (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil)