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

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Suraj Singh, was arrested under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), and (i) of the CGST Act. The High Power Committee (HPC), constituted under a Supreme Court order, issued directions on April 30, 2021, for the release of prisoners on parole/interim bail for 60 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A list of eligible prisoners was prepared and submitted to the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The Magistrate, vide an order dated May 10, 2021, rejected the petitioner's release, stating that no bail application was pending before the High Court or Supreme Court, nor had any bail been rejected. The petitioner contended that this rejection was contrary to the HPC's directions, which did not impose such a condition and that similarly situated individuals had been granted interim bail previously.

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 within the High Power Committee's (HPC) directions dated April 30, 2021, that supported the Magistrate's basis for rejection. The Magistrate had imposed a condition requiring a pending bail application before the High Court or Supreme Court or a bail rejection order, which was not stipulated in the HPC's directives. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the Magistrate had failed to properly appreciate the facts and follow the HPC's directions. The reasoning was that the HPC's order was intended to facilitate the release of prisoners on parole/interim bail for 60 days due to the pandemic, and the Magistrate's interpretation unduly restricted this objective. The ratio decidendi is that judicial orders must strictly adhere to the directives issued by higher authorities, especially when such directives are aimed at mitigating public health crises, and extraneous conditions should not be imposed. The Court quashed the impugned order 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 stipulated in the High Power Committee's (HPC) directions dated April 30, 2021, thereby violating the spirit of the HPC's order aimed at prisoner release during the COVID-19 pandemic, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the impugned order dated May 10, 2021, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, is liable to be quashed for being contrary to the directions issued by the HPC, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate misinterpreted and failed to follow the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021. They contended that the Magistrate imposed an extraneous condition regarding pending bail applications or rejection orders, which was not part of the HPC's directives. The petitioner also highlighted that the maximum punishment under the relevant sections of the CGST Act is only five years and that similar prisoners had been granted interim bail in the past under similar circumstances. They relied on the HPC's directions and the principle of granting relief during the pandemic. Respondent's Arguments: The State conceded that there was no condition in the HPC's directions dated April 30, 2021, that justified the impugned order. They fairly submitted that the impugned order could be quashed and the matter remanded back to the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate for a fresh order in accordance with the HPC's directions.