Allahabad High Court calls for consistency in bail orders to maintain public trust

New Delhi, June 6: The Allahabad High Court recently emphasised that granting bail to one accused while denying it to another under similar circumstances without clear justification undermines public confidence in the judicial process, reported Bar and Bench.

Justice Krishan Pahal, highlighting the importance of consistency in judicial proceedings, in a case [Abhishek Yadav @ Laloo vs State of UP] noted that inconsistent orders are frequently issued, and the High Court is obliged to address and rectify such practices.

“Once the liberty of an individual is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, it is necessary that the courts do not subject the litigants to inconsistent orders. The inconsistency arises when two matters with the same and identical facts and circumstances are subjected to two different orders, specifically when the subsequent order does not specify reasons for not following the earlier order,” the Court observed.

The Court added that the failure to specify reasons for passing inconsistent orders may create an impression that the order was influenced by extraneous reasons.

“When courts grant bail to one accused and deny it to another under similar circumstances without providing clear and reasoned justifications for the disparity, it creates an impression of unpredictability. Such practices can lead to uncertainty and undermine public confidence in the judicial process,” the Court noted.

Justice Pahal further stressed that faith in the judiciary is the cornerstone of a democratic society. “This trust is eroded when judicial orders are inconsistent, creating an appearance of partiality or bias. Inconsistent orders can result in unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals, violating the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such discrimination not only harms the individuals directly affected but also undermines the public’s perception of the judicial system’s fairness and integrity.”

The Court also commented that discriminatory practices in judicial acts constitute a serious breach of duty and gross misconduct by a judicial officer. The judicial act must be consistent with the law and fair procedure.

“If the officer concerned does not have the knowledge of the basic judicial process of fairness, then the same is a reflection on the capability of the officer concerned to hold judicial office. If the officer concerned has acted for extraneous consideration, the same is in violation of judicial polity and conduct,” the Court added.

The remarks were made while dealing with an anticipatory bail application in a case of physical assault and criminal intimidation. The accused, Abhishek Yadav, claimed parity with co-accused who had been granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. It was submitted that there were general allegations against the accused and no specific role had been assigned to anyone.

On May 8, the Court sought an explanation from the trial judge for passing inconsistent bail orders in the case. The trial judge explained that he had granted bail to six accused until the filing of the charge sheet and denied bail to Yadav after being informed that the bail of co-accused Vijay Bahadur had been rejected by the High Court. The judge was not aware of the High Court’s decision when granting bail to the other co-accused.

However, Justice Pahal noted that Yadav was not named in the FIR and the evidence against him was on par with the co-accused who had been granted bail by the trial court. “As per record, there seems nothing to distinguish the case of applicant Abhishek Yadav from the co-accused persons Sharda Prasad Yadav and Ritesh @ Acchelal. Such inconsistency raises questions about the conduct of the judicial officer,” the Court said, adding that the trial judge’s explanation was not mentioned in the bail orders. In this context, the Court granted anticipatory bail to Yadav until the conclusion of the trial.