Jharkhand High Court Rejects Repeated Anticipatory Bail Plea of Harish Kumar Pathak

Court Upholds Judicial Decoram, Disallows Bail Application Without New Grounds

In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Harish Kumar Pathak, citing lack of new grounds for the plea. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, underscores the importance of maintaining judicial decorum and legal propriety, warning against the judicial anarchy that could ensue from repeated bail applications without novel circumstances.

Harish Kumar Pathak, apprehending arrest in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 154/2016, had sought anticipatory bail once again after previous applications were denied by the court. The case involves serious charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 354, 341, 342, 323, 325, 307, 504, and 506, with section 304 added later. Despite the submission of a chargesheet, Pathak maintained that the allegations were false and concocted, and argued for bail based on a medical report suggesting the deceased's death was due to illness rather than assault.

Represented by advocates Indrajit Sinha and Ajay Kr. Sah, Pathak’s defense highlighted his exoneration in a departmental proceeding and pointed to paragraphs in a counter affidavit that purportedly supported his case. However, the State's counsel, including Special Public Prosecutor Pankaj Kumar, opposed the bail, emphasizing the lack of fresh grounds and the comprehensive nature of previous investigations.

Justice Dwivedi, in his judgment, explained that under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, anticipatory bail applications cannot be repeated without new grounds. In contrast, Section 483 allows for repeated bail applications for those in custody if new circumstances arise. The court noted that filing subsequent anticipatory bail applications without fresh grounds violates judicial decorum, potentially leading to confusion and undermining the certainty essential in legal proceedings.

The judgment referred to the Supreme Court's caution in Mahadolal v. Administrator General AIR 1960 SC 1930, highlighting the potential chaos if judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction began overruling each other's decisions. Such actions could leave lawyers and subordinate courts in a dilemma, further complicating legal processes.

Ultimately, the court affirmed that Pathak's case did not present any new grounds since the rejection of his earlier bail applications, leading to the dismissal of his current plea.

Bottom Line:

Repetition of prayer for anticipatory bail without new grounds after rejection by a bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction leads to judicial anarchy and violates judicial decorum.

Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Section 483

Harish Kumar Pathak v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2792912