Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Bail Order Passed by Related Magistrate; Holds Even Perception of Bias Vitiates Judicial Orders, But Protects Accused Against Abrupt Incarceration
Case Name: Akash Walia v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 12 December 2025
Citation: CRM-M-10028-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an order granting regular bail to the accused on the ground that the Magistrate who passed the order was related, albeit distantly, to the accused, giving rise to a legally cognisable apprehension of bias. The Court held that even the perception of partiality strikes at the root of judicial impartiality and renders the order non est in law. However, considering the lapse of time since grant of bail and the stage of trial, the Court declined to direct immediate incarceration and instead granted the accused an opportunity to seek fresh bail before a competent court.
Summary: The petition was filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to the accused in an FIR alleging criminal intimidation, threat to life, and tampering with evidence. The bail had been granted by a Judicial Magistrate, against whom the complainant alleged familial relationship with the accused. Parallel proceedings were initiated on the administrative side, and inquiry reports were placed before the High Court in sealed cover.
The High Court undertook an exhaustive examination of the doctrine of judicial bias, tracing its roots to the principles of natural justice and the maxim nemo judex in causa sua. Relying on authoritative precedent, including recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done, and that even a reasonable apprehension of bias is sufficient to vitiate judicial proceedings.
On appreciation of the inquiry material and sealed reports, the Court concluded that the Magistrate and the accused were related, though distantly, and that the Magistrate was conscious of this consanguinity. Viewed from the standpoint of a fair-minded and informed observer, this relationship created a manifest apprehension of partiality, rendering the bail order legally unsustainable from its inception.
On the merits of cancellation, however, the Court distinguished between an illegal order and the equities arising from passage of time. It noted that the accused had remained on bail for a substantial period, the investigation stood concluded, charges had been framed, and there was no material to suggest misuse of liberty. In such circumstances, immediate cancellation of bail was held to be unjust and disproportionate.
Decision: The impugned bail order was quashed on the ground of bias-in-law. The accused was directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate within the stipulated time and permitted to continue on the same bail bonds till such appearance. The Magistrate was directed to decide the fresh bail application on the same day. The prayer for disciplinary action against the concerned Magistrate was declined at this stage, as the issue was pending consideration on the administrative side.