MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Forum Shopping Cannot Be Tolerated: J&K High Court Quashes Bail for Misrepresentation in SC&ST Case

06 November 2024 7:13 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, under the bench of Justice M.A. Chowdhary, issued a landmark ruling in Anu Bala v. Rajesh Singh & Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, Bail Application No. 379/2021. The Court cancelled bail previously granted to the accused, Rajesh Singh, citing abuse of court processes, suppression of material facts, and violations of procedural requirements under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The case stemmed from an FIR filed by Anu Bala, Assistant Director of Fisheries in Jammu, alleging that Rajesh Singh, an Inspector in the Department, verbally and physically abused her, including caste-based insults, thus violating the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused was initially granted bail on August 28, 2021, by the Sessions Court without disclosing a pending bail application on the same matter before another court. The complainant filed for cancellation of bail, arguing that the accused had obtained interim bail through misrepresentation and forum shopping.

Forum Shopping and Misrepresentation in Bail Applications: The accused filed multiple bail applications in different courts without disclosing the existence of the first application, which was still pending.

Right of Victim to Be Heard Under SC/ST Act: The Sessions Court granted bail without notifying or hearing the complainant, as mandated by Sections 15-A(3) and 15-A(5) of the SC/ST Act.

Abuse of Judicial Process: The Court condemned the accused's actions as an abuse of judicial process, undermining the integrity of the justice system.

Forum Shopping and Non-Disclosure: Grounds for Cancellation of Bail
The High Court observed that the accused engaged in "forum shopping," or "bench hunting," by filing multiple bail applications before different courts on the same day, attempting to secure favorable interim relief. Citing the Supreme Court’s precedents in State of Maharashtra v. Pankaj Gagshi Gangar and Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, the Court condemned this practice as a "disreputable" tactic that pollutes the judicial process.

“Forum shopping has been termed as a disreputable practice by the Courts and has no sanction and paramountcy in law,” stated the Court [Para 24].

The Court emphasized that litigants are required to approach the judiciary with "clean hands" and must fully disclose relevant facts, especially in bail proceedings. The accused’s failure to disclose the pending bail application before another court constituted "misrepresentation and suppression of facts," justifying the cancellation of bail.

The High Court highlighted the mandatory requirement under Sections 15-A(3) and 15-A(5) of the SC/ST Act to notify and allow the victim to be heard in bail proceedings involving atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Court criticized the Sessions Court for granting bail without ensuring compliance with these provisions.

“The statutory provisions, which have been enacted by Parliament as a measure of protecting the constitutional rights of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, must be complied with and enforced conscientiously,” the Court remarked, citing Hariram Bhambi v. Satyanarayan [Para 25].

The Court observed that non-compliance with Section 15-A amounted to a procedural irregularity that rendered the initial grant of bail unsound.

Justice Chowdhary underscored the responsibility of the judiciary to safeguard the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings, especially in cases under the SC/ST Act, which protect marginalized communities. The Court noted that the accused’s actions and the Sessions Court's oversight in failing to involve the complainant violated fundamental principles of justice.

“No litigant should be allowed to pollute the pure stream of justice in any manner,” the Court observed, ordering the cancellation of bail [Para 29].

The High Court quashed the bail order dated November 8, 2021, granted by the Sessions Court, and directed the accused, Rajesh Singh, to surrender to the trial court by November 11, 2024. The Court allowed the accused to apply for fresh bail but directed the trial court to consider any new application independently, without being influenced by the current judgment.
 

Date of Decision: 04 Novemer 2024

Latest Legal News