Delhi High Court
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S.438 — Anticipatory bail — Scope of jurisdiction while deciding bail application — Departmental enquiry against police officials — Judicial overreach.
While considering application for anticipatory bail, Court is confined to question of grant or refusal of bail and cannot travel beyond scope of proceedings by directing departmental enquiry against police officials, monitoring disciplinary proceedings or passing adverse remarks unrelated to adjudication of bail application. After disposal of anticipatory bail application, Court becomes functus officio and cannot continue proceedings by calling status reports or supervising departmental action.
(Paras 12 to 18)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Judicial discipline — Adverse remarks against public officials — Principles of natural justice.
Adverse or disparaging remarks against police officials cannot be made without affording opportunity of hearing, particularly where such remarks prejudge conduct of officials and affect disciplinary proceedings. Courts should refrain from unnecessary castigatory observations regarding investigation unless absolutely necessary for adjudication of lis.
(Paras 9, 15 to 17)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Bail proceedings — Scope — Functus officio.
Once anticipatory bail application stands finally disposed of, nothing survives before Court and continuation of proceedings thereafter by summoning officials, calling explanations or monitoring disciplinary proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction.
(Paras 14 and 15)
FACTS OF THE CASE
-
FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC concerning missing minor girl and during investigation offences under Sections 328 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act were added.
-
Investigation was conducted by different Investigating Officers from time to time and during pendency of investigation one co-accused moved application for anticipatory bail before Sessions Court.
-
While disposing of anticipatory bail application, Sessions Court called for status reports regarding delay in investigation and directed appearance of previous IOs and SHOs.
-
Subsequently, Sessions Court ordered departmental enquiry against concerned police officials and called for explanations from supervisory officers regarding alleged delay in investigation.
-
Petitioners challenged said orders contending that after disposal of anticipatory bail application the Sessions Court had become functus officio and exceeded jurisdiction by continuing proceedings and directing disciplinary action.
-
Petitioners further contended that adverse remarks and directions for departmental enquiry were issued without affording them opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
The High Court examined permissible scope of jurisdiction exercised by a Court while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.
The Court reiterated that while adjudicating a bail application, jurisdiction of the Court remains confined to determination whether bail ought to be granted or refused. Bail proceedings cannot be converted into supervisory proceedings concerning administration of police department or disciplinary control over investigating officials.
Relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in State v. M. Murugesan, the Court held that even laudable objectives cannot justify exercise of jurisdiction beyond statutory limits while deciding bail matters.
The Court further held that once anticipatory bail application stood finally disposed of, the Sessions Court became functus officio and no proceedings survived thereafter. Consequently, continuation of proceedings by calling status reports, summoning police officials, directing departmental enquiries and monitoring such proceedings was wholly impermissible.
The judgment also emphasized principles of natural justice governing adverse judicial remarks against public officials. The Court held that disparaging remarks affecting reputation and disciplinary prospects of officials cannot be made without giving them opportunity of hearing.
The High Court further observed that unnecessary castigatory observations against investigating officers are to be avoided, particularly where such remarks are not essential for adjudication of controversy before Court.
Accordingly, impugned orders directing departmental enquiry and all consequential proceedings were set aside and adverse remarks expunged.
RATIO DECIDENDI
While adjudicating an application for anticipatory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the jurisdiction of the Court is confined solely to consideration of grant or refusal of bail, and after disposal of the bail application the Court becomes functus officio and cannot continue proceedings by directing or monitoring departmental enquiries against police officials, calling status reports or passing adverse remarks unrelated to adjudication of bail; and disparaging remarks affecting public officials cannot be made without affording them an opportunity of hearing in conformity with principles of natural justice.
(Paras 12 to 19)
