Sh. Sanjay Jain vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Sanjay Jain, was arrested under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), and (i) of the CGST Act. He sought release on parole/interim bail for 60 days, citing directions issued by a High Power Committee (HPC) on April 30, 2021, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. These directions were aimed at releasing prisoners to mitigate the spread of the virus. The Jail Superintendent prepared a list of eligible prisoners, including the petitioner, and submitted it to the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. However, the Magistrate rejected the petitioner's request by an order dated May 10, 2021, stating that no bail application was pending before the High Court or Supreme Court, nor had any bail been rejected by these higher courts. The petitioner contended that this ground for rejection was not stipulated in the HPC's directions.

Held

The Court held that the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, had erred in passing the impugned order dated May 10, 2021. The Court found no condition within the directions issued by the High Power Committee (HPC) on April 30, 2021, that justified the Magistrate's rejection of the petitioner's application for parole/interim bail. The Magistrate's imposition of a requirement for a pending bail application or a bail rejection order from the High Court or Supreme Court was not supported by the HPC's directives. Consequently, the Court concluded that the impugned order lacked merit and was liable to be quashed. The ratio decidendi is that judicial authorities must strictly adhere to the specific directions and guidelines issued by higher committees or authorities, especially when such directions are aimed at addressing public welfare concerns like a pandemic, and should not introduce extraneous conditions. The Court quashed the order dated May 10, 2021, and directed the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, to reconsider the petitioner's application and pass a reasoned order within one week, strictly in accordance with the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for parole/interim bail by imposing a condition not present in the High Power Committee's (HPC) directions dated April 30, 2021, thereby violating the spirit and letter of those directions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated May 10, 2021, was passed without properly appreciating the facts and without following the directions issued by the HPC. The HPC's directions, intended for the release of prisoners on parole/interim bail for 60 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic, did not contain the condition that a bail application must be pending before the High Court or Supreme Court, or that a bail rejection order must have been passed by these courts. The petitioner asserted that they were fully entitled to release based on the HPC's directions and that similarly situated prisoners had been granted interim bail under similar sections of the CGST Act in the past. The impugned order was therefore contrary to the HPC's directions and liable to be quashed. Respondent's Arguments: The learned Additional Advocate General fairly conceded that there was no condition in the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021, that formed the basis of the impugned order. The respondent agreed that the impugned order could be quashed and the matter remanded back to the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, for passing a fresh order strictly in accordance with the HPC's directions.