The Wheels of Injustice: Individual’s personal liberty and the society’s interest at the arbitrary mercy & whims and fancy of a Judge.

I can’t change world. But, you bet, I can try. I've no business to be around if I don’t try and I'm determined to repeat my tries till last breath. Even, the absenteeism of justice-reason-fair play in the system can’t deter me from trying. I can’t afford to be here just like animal: birth, eating, sex, family and then death, life is much larger than all this.

HALF TRUTH OF THE JUDICIAL WHEELS

(A FICTION RESEMBLES WITH TRUTH)

The Wheels of Injustice: Individual’s personal liberty and the society’s interest at the arbitrary mercy & whims and fancy of a Judge.

The Bail Law is most abused and arbitrary law where no principle of law, no precedent, no constitution, no fundamental right works at the altar of whims and fancieas of judge. This involves issues of great public importance pertaining to the importance of individual’s personal liberty and the society’s interest. Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code confer unfettered discretion on courts to grant or deny bail to accused persons. This is the basic principle of Rule of Law that all discretions vested in all authorities are for promoting and protecting the larger public interest. In simple terms the wheels of justice should have unfettered and smooth movement for promoting the rule of law; based on settled principles of law. And the wheels of justice must move smoothly; without caring for the person who comes in its way; irrespective of the position, influence of a person.

But do the ‘Wheels of Justice’ move forward for advancing justice, without caring for the position of the party coming in its way? The below mentioned my personal experiences clearly indicate that the ‘Wheels of Justice’ have become the ‘Wheels of Injustice’ crushing and protecting people at the unfettered and unprincipled command of a Judge, which appears to be actuated by extraneous considerations.

Six accused are involved in a single offence of forgery of documents for cheating the amount of around 8 lakhs from a victim. All accused, except one, are arrested same date and the role of the accused can not be differentiated in the alleged commission of offence.  4 accused engaged a lawyer; the brother of a serving Judge and got bail within a very short span of time. The 5^th poor accused; despite the constant efforts of junior lawyers, police officials, jail officials, court officials, working as a tout of lawyer, refused to engage the aforesaid lawyer at the exorbitant fee. Off course, the overpriced fee involves commission to touts spread everywhere in the well oiled corrupt machinery; making the wheel of justice move forward. On refusal, the lawyer challenged the relatives of the 5^th accused that ‘no one else in the trial court could get bail, if anyone gets bail he will change

The 5^th accused person’s relatives approached me for his bail; having spent more than 3 months in jail and told me about the open challenged thrown by the judge brother lawyer. Not having faced any such experience, I wondered how a judge can deny bail to an accused while the other co-accused involved in the same offence and arrested on same day had already been released on bail. So, I decided to file bail application of the 5^th accused by attaching the 4 earlier orders of the judge granting bail to the other co-accused and sought relief on same grounds. Though, as my inclination towards perfections in drafting my bail application was of more than 20 pages containing case law other facts and circumstances in the favour of my client, while the earlier 4 bail application was of only 2-3 pages typed in a very casual manner. I argued the bail matter by referring to the liberty, freedom, fundamental rights etc. enshrined in the Constitution of India and sought bail on the ground of parity with other co-accused. To my utter dismay my bail was dismissed on the same grounds/plea of PP, which had been rejected by the same while granting bail to other co-accused. Faced with very awkward situation, I assured the client to file Bail Application before the High Court; without charging any fee for High Court. In the High Court the rituals of hearings are completely different attracting more arbitrariness and sometimes the relief swings with the mood swing of a Judge. However, High Court granted bail to the poor 5^th accused on the surety of Rs. 5 Lakhs, whereas the other co-accused had been released on the surety of Rs. One Lakh only. Then, there was a fresh struggle of searching a person with 5 Lakh immovable property; who can stand as a surety for the accused in Haryana, whereas the accused was from U.P. A clerk of a Lawyer was given task to arranging a surety; of course at a price. He could not find surety with immovable property worth Rs. 5 Lakhs, but he was able to lay his hand on a surety with the RC of truck worth 10 Lakhs. The clerk told me about the alternative arrangement, but I flatly told the clerk that the RC will not work as the same is of movable property whereas the High Court had clearly directed to give the surety of immovable property. But the clerk told me that he will manage the affairs at the cost of Rs. 500/- to be paid to the Reader of the concerned Judge. I refused to be party to such affair; but keeping in view the liberty of a poor person and also to see the drama how it was possible to manage the avoidance of clear directions of the High Court, I allowed the clerk go ahead at his own risk. Surprisingly, the clerk got released the accused on bail with placing on record the RC of a truck instead of the documents of Immovable property. I was wondering how the Judicial Magistrate verified and signed the compliance of the directions of High Court. Though, its a different story that on the next date of hearing, on the insistence of the counsel for the complaiant, my client was directed to arrange the documents of immovable property worth 5 lakhs.

Now, take the another case, here the accused happens to be the former cabinet minister the prime-accused in more than 400 pending cases, for commission of offences hampering the growth of a health democracy, by polluting the fair election process by means of creating more than 30000 (thirty thousand) bogus votes; with the aid of large scale impersonation, massive fabrication and forgery of documents, in conspiracy with the concerned officials of the election department, with the ultimate aim of hijacking the democracy, in which he succeeded by winning the 2009 Haryana Assembly Elections, as an independent candidate and later became cabinet minister. And, this accused is with  the criminal antecedents, named in 5(Five) FIRs for alleged commission of the offences of Gang Rape, Theft, Causing injury with dangerous weapons, House-Trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, using criminal force in attempt to wrongfully confine a person, Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant, Injuring & defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion etc. This accused is granted the relief of interim bail by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Surprisingly, I appeared on three dates on behalf of the complainant and placed on record certain documents indicating the involvement of the accused/former minister in various cases. However, surprisingly, all the three orders of the High Court not even give slight reference to the documents placed on record by me, on the behalf of the Informant/Complainant. To utter dismay of everyone, this same judge has declined the bail to accused persons involved in petty offences like cheating for getting tractor loan, having named in FIR relating to matrimonial dispute, offences relating to the Agreement to Sale of land etc. Whereas, a poor lady, the co-accused of the former minister, who had helped him in creating massive bogus votes, is arrested and put behind bars for one week.

I wonder and completely perplexed to think whether the ‘Wheels of Justice’ has different speed and parameters while curshing the different accused; represented by different lawyers? It appears that the ‘Wheels of Justice’ have become the ‘Wheels of Injustice’ crushing only poor; while protecting accused from elite class. In such situation I find solace in the quote of great soul Dietrich Bonhoeffer, which reads:

“We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.”

          Hence, going to approach Supreme Court, the apex custodian of rights, for allaying my aforesaid concerns; actuated by differential and privileged treatment to an accused, only because he happens to be a rich former minister.