1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1070  OF 2008 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL)NO.2680 OF 2005)

UMESH SINGH                                   Appellant(s)

                     VERSUS

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD & ANR.                Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appellant  had joined the U.P.Higher  Judicial  Service  as  a direct

recruit on 14.12.1998 and was posted as VII Addl.District & Sessions Judge,

Deoria.   The  appellant,  while  working  as  Additional  Sessions  Judge  at

Bareilly, declined bail to an accused, who was suspected to be in possession

of some stolen ornaments and jewellery.  The accused was arrested by the

police while she was trying to sell the stolen property.  The learned Sessions

Judge was of the view that the accused might have been possessing stolen

articles and the bail was rejected.  This order was challenged by the accused

before the High Court.  The learned single Judge of the High Court granted

bail to the accused and directed that notice  be issued to the Sessions Judge

as to why he had declined bail to the accused and that which offence was

committed by the accused and thereafter  notice was issued to the appellant

2

herein as to why

3

disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against him.  The appellant

submitted  his  explanation  in  reply.   Thereafter  the  learned  single  Judge

observed that no case was made out against the accused and the rejection of

the  bail  was  unjustified  and ordered  that  adverse  remark  of  warning  be

entered in the character roll of the appellant for passing careless orders on

the bail application.  This order is under  challenge before this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the

respondent-High Court.

In our opinion, the learned single Judge was wrong in observing that

no offence was made out against the accused.  A person suspected to be in

possession of stolen property may be alleged to have committed an offence

and the Sessions Judge was justified in declining bail, especially when there

was no proper explanation from the side of the accused.  The learned single

Judge was not correct in arriving at such a view but we make it clear that we

do not want to make any observation against the accused at this stage on

merits nor do we observe anything against the grant of bail  given by the

learned single Judge in the proceedings.  However, the learned single Judge

of the High Court was not justified in making such adverse remarks against

the Sessions Judge especially when there is nothing to show  on the part of

the  Sessions  Judge,  that  he  was  acting  without    any    bonafide  in

discharging his judicial functions.  

4

The order of the learned single Judge is set aside as the same affects the

career of the appellant.  The appeal is allowed accordingly.    

...............CJI. (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

.................J.     (P. SATHASIVAM)

.................J.     (J.M. PANCHAL)

NEW DELHI; 11TH JULY, 2008.