HC’s Order Seeking Explanation From Sessions Judge For Granting Bail Will Have Chilling Effect On District Judiciary: SC Sets Aside Order
The Supreme Court in an appeal has set aside an order of the High Court seeking an explanation from an Additional Sessions Judge for granting bail in a case and has held that the order was wholly disproportionate and that such orders of the High Court produce a chilling effect on the District Judiciary.
A two-Judge Bench comprising CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala asserted, “The order passed by the Trial Judge granting bail on the ground that the charge-sheet had been submitted and that the other accused were on bail was eminently fair and reasonable. The order of the High Court directing that the appellant be arrested immediately and seeking an explanation from the Second Additional Sessions Judge was wholly disproportionate and was not warranted. Such orders of the High Court produce a chilling effect on the District judiciary.”
The Bench observed that the members of the district judiciary cannot be placed in a sense of fear if they were to exercise the jurisdiction lawfully entrusted to them for granting bail in appropriate cases.
Advocate Rekha Pandey appeared on behalf of the appellant while Advocate Anuradha Mutatkar and AAG Bharat Singh appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Brief Facts -
A Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court cancelled a bail that was granted to the appellant observing that the Trial Court had granted bail to the appellant without taking into account an earlier order of the High Court dated July 21, 2022 rejecting bail. The High Court observed that the fact that the charge sheet had been filed could not be considered a change in circumstances and the police was directed to arrest the appellant immediately.
The High Court also directed the Registrar General to issue a notice to show cause to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Harda to seek his explanation on the circumstances in which he had granted bail to the appellant. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the appellant for offences under Sections 294, 323, 342, 354, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the allegation was that when the complainant was going to tend his cows and oxen, the appellant and other co-accused accosted him, tied him to a tree after stripping him and assaulted him.
The Supreme Court, in view of the above facts, noted, “The order of the Trial Judge does not indicate that he had applied the wrong principles of law. Quite to the contrary, the exercise of the discretion to grant bail, having due regard to the nature of the offence, the fact that other accused had been granted bail and the charge-sheet had been submitted, was appropriate.”
The Court directed that the bail which was granted to the appellant in pursuance of an order shall stand confirmed, subject to the terms and conditions which were imposed by the Trial Court.
“The appellant was in custody from 29 June 2022 till 16 August 2022, when he was granted bail by the Trial Court. As a result of the cancellation of bail by the High Court on 2 December 2022, he was taken into custody until he was released in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 24 February 2023 granting bail”, also noted the Court.
Accordingly, the Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court, dismissed the application for cancellation of bail, and confirmed the bail granted to the appellant.
Cause Title- Totaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
