HC pulls up Haryana judge for contradictory bail orders in forgery case, calls for probe
The court also cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to Priyanka Kumari and said the Investigating Officer would be at liberty to take appropriate legal remedial measures in accordance with law.
3 min read
The court also cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to Priyanka Kumari. (File Photo)The Punjab and Haryana High Court has pulled up a Faridabad additional sessions judge for passing two contradictory bail orders on the same day, raising questions about procedural integrity in a forgery case.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil, hearing a plea by a petitioner, Rakhi, to cancel anticipatory bail granted to Priyanka Kumari, flagged the discrepancy in additional sessions judge Jyoti Lambha’s November 19, 2024, rulings in a forgery and counterfeiting case (FIR No. 0105, Bhupani police station, Faridabad).
Court records show judge Lambha initially directed Priyanka during the morning hearing to join the investigation within three days. Later that day, she issued a written order granting her “absolute anticipatory bail,” allowing liberty “without having undergone any period of custody.”
The High Court formally sought an explanation, observing: “In the light of these two orders of even date, this Court called for the explanation of Judicial Officer Ms. Jyoti Lambha, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 09.12.2024 which was received by this Court vide memo No. 825 dated 16.12.2024 in the form of explanation qua the order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-6) through the Registrar of this Court.”
Calling out the irregularity, Justice Moudgil noted: “A perusal of the said explanation 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 (Annexure P-6) came to be passed granting the accused absolute anticipatory bail at the first instance itself.”
An affidavit by assistant commissioner of police Rajeev Kumar Hari underscored the contradiction: “During the hearing … the court orally issued directions … but in the afternoon when SI Kamal Chand got the order typed, he found that the ASJ had granted anticipatory bail.”
Calling for appropriate probe into the conduct of the additional sessions judge, Justice Moudgil ruled, “As far as conduct of the Judicial Officer is concerned, which is not only to be deprecated but demands thorough investigation … accordingly, the Registrar General is directed to place the case file along with a copy of the order before the Administrative Judge, Faridabad, for consideration and necessary action as deemed appropriate.”
The court also cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to Priyanka Kumari and said the Investigating Officer would be at liberty to take appropriate legal remedial measures in accordance with law.
The bail challenge stemmed from allegations that Priyanka, with co-accused Shatrughan Pandey, forged an agreement dated April 20, 2023, to obtain an electricity connection on land owned by the petitioner’s family. Police say forged stamps and signatures were used to claim rights over the property and custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the original forged agreement and pursue further leads.
Earlier, a magistrate’s refusal to grant custody, citing Priyanka’s status as a street vendor, was overturned in revision, with the court remarking: “Denying the crime is a crime and court cannot stop the investigation being conducted by the police to its logical end.”
Rakhi’s counsel Rajesh Lamba and Rahul Guglan pressed for a deeper probe, with state counsel Chetan Sharma supporting cancellation of bail. Priyanka’s lawyer H S Jugait defended the bail order.
You May Like
Photos
