HC seeks explanation from judicial officer over ‘transgression’ in bail grant

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur. Facilisis eu sit commodo sit. Phasellus elit sit sit dolor risus faucibus vel aliquam. Fames mattis.



Raising serious concerns over the allegations of a trial court releasing an accused on bail in a non-bailable offence — despite the pendency of his anticipatory bail plea before the high court — the Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for an explanation from the judicial officer concerned through Malerkotla District and Sessions Judge.Issuing notice of motion to the state and other respondents, Justice Alok Jain of the high court took note of the contentions that the impugned order dated December 23, 2025, prima facie reflected a transgression of jurisdiction by the trial court.The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the trial court had granted bail even though no bail application was filed before it and the offence was admittedly non-bailable. The bench was also told that this was done “despite the fact that the anticipatory bail application is pending consideration before this court”.The bench further took note of the grievance that the trial court had not only bypassed the absence of a bail plea but had also incorrectly recorded the offences as bailable. “The counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has transgressed its powers as, despite the fact that the anticipatory bail application is pending consideration before this court and that the offence is non-bailable in nature, the impugned order dated December 23, 2025, has been passed, whereby the accused has been released on bail without there being any bail application, much less without considering the relevant facts, and also by wrongly recording that the offences are bailable in nature,” Justice Jain observed.Finding the issue serious enough to warrant accountability, Justice Jain directed: “In the meanwhile, let an explanation also be called for from the concerned judicial officer through the District and Sessions Judge, Malerkotla.”The notice issued by the bench was accepted by the state of Punjab through an Additional Advocate-General. The matter has been adjourned to February 26, and will be heard along with a connected petition.

Tags :

Search

Popular Posts


Recent Posts

©2025 – All Right Reserved. Designed and Developed by JATTVIBE.