The Gujarat high court came down heavily on a lower court judge for ignoring the Supreme Court directive while rejecting anticipatory bail of a farmer of Thasra village in Kheda district.
It has ordered to send the judge to HC's judicial academy to study and for his sensitization towards using court's powers in cases of anticipatory bail.
Justice Anant Dave pulled up an additional sessions judge of Nadiad court for denying bail to Thasra resident Bharat Patel, who was accused of killing a blue bull. The lower court judge refused bail to Patel by observing that an SC order related to interpretation of provisions of section 438 of the CrPC cannot be applied to this case.
When Patel moved the HC, Justice Dave found that the lower court judge was "oblivious to the law laid down by the apex court" and he just "casually" mentioned that such judgment is not applicable in a case.
Irked by the sessions judge's order, the HC said, "The degree of understanding of law and anticipatory bail by 5th additional sessions judge of Nadiad needs to be relooked and for sensitization of a judicial officer of the rank of additional sessions judge, the registry of the high court is directed to informed the concerned judge to attend the session that is to be conducted by the judicial academy, if so scheduled with regard to powers to be exercised under section 438 of the CrPC."
The HC said so after Patel's lawyer submitted that the accused suffers from epilepsy for 20 years and is home confined. The incident of killing the animal took place on February 25 and FIR was lodged the next evening merely on basis of a woman's statement.
It has ordered to send the judge to HC's judicial academy to study and for his sensitization towards using court's powers in cases of anticipatory bail.
Justice Anant Dave pulled up an additional sessions judge of Nadiad court for denying bail to Thasra resident Bharat Patel, who was accused of killing a blue bull. The lower court judge refused bail to Patel by observing that an SC order related to interpretation of provisions of section 438 of the CrPC cannot be applied to this case.
When Patel moved the HC, Justice Dave found that the lower court judge was "oblivious to the law laid down by the apex court" and he just "casually" mentioned that such judgment is not applicable in a case.
Irked by the sessions judge's order, the HC said, "The degree of understanding of law and anticipatory bail by 5th additional sessions judge of Nadiad needs to be relooked and for sensitization of a judicial officer of the rank of additional sessions judge, the registry of the high court is directed to informed the concerned judge to attend the session that is to be conducted by the judicial academy, if so scheduled with regard to powers to be exercised under section 438 of the CrPC."
The HC said so after Patel's lawyer submitted that the accused suffers from epilepsy for 20 years and is home confined. The incident of killing the animal took place on February 25 and FIR was lodged the next evening merely on basis of a woman's statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment