LACHHMAN DASS v. RESHAM CHAND KALER & Anr.

Judicial discipline – Held: It is not expected of High Court to pass a mandatory order commanding the subordinate court to compulsorily grant bail – Such mandatory directions breach the independence of subordinate courts – Bail. Allowing the appeals, the Court 326 LACHHMAN DASS v. RESHAM CHAND KALER AND ANR. 327 HELD: Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2018:

#1. A prima facie case is made out against the respondent- accused, as in the Compact Disc (CD) filed alongwith the petition, the group of persons are seen committing the offence using deadly weapons and sticks. The seriousness and gravity of the offence can be clearly observed from the CD. However, aforesaid observations must not be construed as findings on merits. Though respondent No. 1 is not a citizen of this country (British national), yet the fact remains that he along with other persons has indulged in the criminal activity. The case of the prosecution mainly revolves around him as he is alleged to be the kingpin of the criminal conspiracy which demands his custodial interrogation. In such circumstances, the High Court did not appreciate the facts of the case with prudent legal perception. There is no reason to accord any special consideration for respondent No.1 by virtue of a simple fact that he is a citizen of different country. The law under Section 439 of Cr.P.C is very clear and in the eyes of the law every accused is the same, irrespective of their nationality. [Para 11][331-H; 332-A-C]

#2. This case is not an appeal seeking cancellation of bail in any sense rather, this case calls for the legal sustainability of the impugned order granting bail to the accused-respondent. The difference between the cancellation of the bail and a legal challenge to an order granting bail for non-consideration of material available on record is a settled proposition. To clarify, there is no ground pleaded herein that a supervening event breaching bail conditions is raised. [Para 12][332-D-E]