Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh Monday pointed out that an order passed by a court that affects the rights of a party had to be reasoned, saying otherwise the same becomes unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
Disposing of a petition filed against a Budgam court’s order which had declined to extend anticipatory bail to two accused “without assigning any reason”, a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said that it was not by the law.
Noting that a perusal of the order dated June 22, 2022, passed by the Sessions Judge, Budgam shows that the judge while declining to extend the interim protection to the petitioners had not assigned any reason much less any cogent reason in his order, the court said: “An order passed by a court which affects the rights of a party has to be reasoned and in absence of a reason it becomes unsustainable in the eyes of the law.”
While the court pointed out that in the instant case, the Sessions Judge had not at all assigned any reason for declining to extend the interim protection granted to the petitioners, it said, “Thus the order to the aforesaid extent is not by the law.”
The court disposed of the petition with a direction to Sessions Judge Budgam to decide the bail application pending before him on its merits after hearing the parties by the law.
“Till such a time, the bail application is decided by the learned Sessions Judge, the interim protection granted to the petitioners vide order dated May 25, 2022, will remain in operation,” the court said.
Earlier, the counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioner and the co-accused had approached the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest.
He submitted that on May 25, 2022, the interim protection was granted in their favour which was valid till June 10, and thereafter it was extended up to June 27.
“On that date, the Sessions Judge extended the interim protection to the three co-accused but declined to extend interim protection to the petitioners in cases related to a land dispute between the petitioners and the complainant party,” he said. “The FIR stands already challenged by the petitioners before this court by way of a petition under Section 482 CrPC.”