Contradictory Bail Orders: Punjab & Haryana High Court Calls for Judicial Inquiry

Contradictions in Bail Orders Raise Serious Concerns

Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while hearing the plea, flagged significant procedural lapses in two orders passed by Additional Sessions Judge Jyoti Lambha on November 19, 2024, in FIR No. 0105, registered at Bhupani Police Station, Faridabad. During the morning hearing, the judge orally directed Priyanka Kumari to join the investigation within three days. However, a written order issued later that day granted her absolute anticipatory bail, allowing full liberty without any custodial interrogation.

This contradiction raised red flags, prompting the High Court to seek an explanation from the judicial officer.

Judge Acknowledges Change of Opinion

In her written explanation submitted through the Registrar, Judge Lambha admitted that she had initially directed the accused to cooperate with the investigation. However, she later changed her view and passed the order granting unconditional anticipatory bail. Justice Moudgil found this reversal troubling, noting that the shift in stance within the same day created procedural confusion.

“A perusal of the said explanation makes it clear that the judicial officer initially directed the accused to join the investigation but later decided to grant anticipatory bail,” the court observed.

Police Statement Confirms Procedural Irregularity

The court also took note of an affidavit by Assistant Commissioner of Police Rajeev Kumar Hari, who highlighted the inconsistency. According to the affidavit, Sub-Inspector Kamal Chand, who was present during the morning hearing, later received a written order that contradicted the oral directions issued in court.

Judicial Conduct Under Scrutiny

Justice Moudgil termed the judge’s conduct as “not only to be deprecated but demanding thorough investigation.” The court directed the Registrar General to place the case file, along with the explanation, before the Administrative Judge, Faridabad for further action.

Bail Revoked, Custodial Interrogation Permitted

The High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to Priyanka Kumari, highlighting the seriousness of the forgery allegations and the need for effective investigation. The police are now at liberty to take custodial steps to recover the original forged land agreement and pursue further leads.

The case revolves around an alleged attempt by Priyanka Kumari and Shatrughan Pandey to obtain an electricity connection using a forged agreement dated April 20, 2023, falsely claiming ownership of land belonging to the petitioner’s family.

Earlier Proceedings and Legal Representation

Initially, a Magistrate denied police custody citing Priyanka’s status as a street vendor. However, that decision was later overturned, with the revisional court observing that, “denying the crime is a crime, and the court cannot stop the police from completing the investigation.”

The petitioner, Rakhi, was represented by advocates Rajesh Lamba and Rahul Guglan, while the State was represented by Chetan Sharma, who supported the cancellation plea. Priyanka Kumari’s counsel, H.S. Jugait, defended the grant of bail.

Upholding Judicial Standards

The High Court’s ruling reinforces the necessity of procedural consistency and judicial accountability. By directing an inquiry into the conduct of the sessions judge and cancelling the bail granted under questionable circumstances, the court underscored that deviations from judicial propriety—especially in criminal matters—will not be taken lightly.

Source

• The Indian Express – HC pulls up Haryana judge for contradictory bail orders in forgery case, calls for probe (Published: July 25, 2025)

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams