Radhika Mittal
In a notable observation, the Allahabad High Court emphasized the necessity for consistency in judicial decisions, especially concerning bail orders, to maintain public confidence in the legal system. This statement came during the adjudication of an anticipatory bail plea in the case Abhishek Yadav @ Laloo vs. State of UP.
Justice Krishan Pahal, presiding over the case, highlighted that issuing contradictory bail orders without explicit justifications compromises the integrity of judicial process’s integrity. The Court pointed out that when individuals in similar legal predicaments receive differing bail decisions, the lack of clear reasons for these discrepancies can undermine public trust.
“Protecting the liberty of individuals as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution necessitates that courts avoid delivering inconsistent orders, especially in cases with identical facts and circumstances,” Justice Pahal stated. He stressed that such disparities, if left unexplained, could foster perceptions of bias or extraneous influence in judicial decisions.
The Court’s remarks came in response to the anticipatory bail application of Abhishek Yadav, who sought parity with his co-accused granted bail under similar conditions by a lower court. Yadav’s plea highlighted the issue of inconsistent bail decisions within the same case, questioning the judicial officer’s conduct and decision-making process.
During the proceedings, it was noted that the trial judge had granted bail to six co-accused based on the same set of allegations while denying Yadav’s bail without acknowledging any significant differentiating factors. Justice Pahal noted that such inconsistency violated the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, which could erode public perception of the judiciary’s fairness and impartiality.
The High Court, in granting anticipatory bail to Yadav, reiterated the importance of consistency in judicial orders to preserve public confidence. The decision underscored that unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals must be avoided to uphold the judiciary’s credibility and the rule of law.
Name of the Case : Abhishek Yadav @ Laloo vs. State of UP
Bench: Justice Krishan Pahal