Sh. Mulayam Singh vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Mulayam Singh, was arrested under Section 132(1)(b), (c), and (i) of the CGST Act. He sought release on parole/interim bail for 60 days, citing directions issued by the High Power Committee (HPC) on April 30, 2021, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The HPC's directions aimed to facilitate the release of prisoners. The Jail Superintendent prepared a list of eligible prisoners, which was submitted to the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application on May 10, 2021, stating that no bail application was pending before the High Court or Supreme Court, nor had any bail rejection order been passed, which the petitioner argued was not a condition in the HPC's directions.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated May 10, 2021, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, lacked merit and was liable to be quashed. The Court found no condition in the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021, that supported the basis on which the Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application. Therefore, the Magistrate's order was contrary to the HPC's directives. The Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the petition. The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application and pass a reasoned order within one week from the production of the court's order, strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the HPC on April 30, 2021. The ratio decidendi is that judicial authorities must strictly adhere to the directions issued by higher committees or courts, especially in matters concerning prisoner release during public health crises, and cannot impose extraneous conditions not contemplated by such directions.

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 stipulated in the High Power Committee's (HPC) directions dated April 30, 2021, thereby violating the spirit and letter of those directions, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the impugned rejection order dated May 10, 2021, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, is liable to be quashed for being contrary to the HPC's directions and for failing to properly appreciate the facts and follow the HPC's directives, as contended by the petitioner? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the Magistrate's rejection order was based on a misinterpretation of the HPC's directions, which did not require a pending bail application or a prior bail rejection order. They contended that the Magistrate failed to appreciate the facts and follow the HPC's directives, which entitled the petitioner to release on parole/interim bail for 60 days, especially considering similar releases granted in the past under analogous sections of the CGST Act during the pandemic. The petitioner relied on the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021. Contentions of the Respondent (State): The learned Additional Advocate General fairly conceded that the condition imposed by the Magistrate was not present in the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021. The State agreed that the impugned order could be quashed and the matter remanded back to the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, for a fresh order in strict accordance with the HPC's directions.