A high court cannot direct a lower court to grant bail to an accused as this fetters the trial court’s powers, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The apex court quashed the bail granted to a murder accused, Sweekar Nayak, by a trial court in Odisha as it had been directed to do so by the state high court.
Ironically, the high court had declined to grant Nayak anticipatory bail but asked the trial court to grant him bail if and when he sought such relief.
The apex court bench of Justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B. Lokur passed the recent order on an appeal moved by Sudam Charan Dash, father of Rajib who was murdered in a hotel on January 5, 2009.
Dash had earlier approached the high court alleging a weak police investigation. This led to the probe picking up momentum. On January 3 this year, the Rayagada subdivisional judicial magistrate (SDJM) issued a non-bailable warrant against Nayak.
Nayak then sought anticipatory bail from the high court, which rejected the plea citing the nature of the allegation.
However, it directed that if Nayak surrendered before the trial court within four weeks and applied for bail, he should be freed on bail. Nayak surrendered and was released on bail on June 11, prompting Dash to approach the Supreme Court.
“We are surprised at the (high court) direction,” the apex court said. “When the high court rejected the application for anticipatory bail, it was sufficient indication that the high court thought it fit not to put a fetter on the investigating agency’s power to arrest respondent 2 (Nayak).”
It added: “Therefore, after rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail, the high court should not have negated its own order by directing that (Nayak) should be released on bail. Such order is not legally sound.”
The apex court cited an injunction passed by a Constitution bench in 1980 saying a trial court cannot be directed by superior courts to grant bail, and the discretion must be left to the magistrate or sessions judge concerned.
“We also feel that such orders put a restriction on the power of the trial court to consider the bail application on its merits and grant or reject the prayer for bail. We are of the opinion that such orders should never be passed,” the bench of Justices Desai and Lokur said.
“Obviously, the SDJM released (Nayak) on bail solely on the ground that the high court had issued the above-mentioned direction. The SDJM had no alternative.”
Quashing the bail, the court said: “If respondent 2 appears and surrenders before the SDJM, Rayagada, on 29/10/2013 and prefers an application for bail, we direct the SDJM… to decide (the) application on merits…. The appellant may remain present in the court and oppose the bail application if he so desires.”
Article referred: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131104/jsp/nation/story_17528138.jsp#.Unp5VfnPH50
The apex court quashed the bail granted to a murder accused, Sweekar Nayak, by a trial court in Odisha as it had been directed to do so by the state high court.
Ironically, the high court had declined to grant Nayak anticipatory bail but asked the trial court to grant him bail if and when he sought such relief.
The apex court bench of Justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B. Lokur passed the recent order on an appeal moved by Sudam Charan Dash, father of Rajib who was murdered in a hotel on January 5, 2009.
Dash had earlier approached the high court alleging a weak police investigation. This led to the probe picking up momentum. On January 3 this year, the Rayagada subdivisional judicial magistrate (SDJM) issued a non-bailable warrant against Nayak.
Nayak then sought anticipatory bail from the high court, which rejected the plea citing the nature of the allegation.
However, it directed that if Nayak surrendered before the trial court within four weeks and applied for bail, he should be freed on bail. Nayak surrendered and was released on bail on June 11, prompting Dash to approach the Supreme Court.
“We are surprised at the (high court) direction,” the apex court said. “When the high court rejected the application for anticipatory bail, it was sufficient indication that the high court thought it fit not to put a fetter on the investigating agency’s power to arrest respondent 2 (Nayak).”
It added: “Therefore, after rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail, the high court should not have negated its own order by directing that (Nayak) should be released on bail. Such order is not legally sound.”
The apex court cited an injunction passed by a Constitution bench in 1980 saying a trial court cannot be directed by superior courts to grant bail, and the discretion must be left to the magistrate or sessions judge concerned.
“We also feel that such orders put a restriction on the power of the trial court to consider the bail application on its merits and grant or reject the prayer for bail. We are of the opinion that such orders should never be passed,” the bench of Justices Desai and Lokur said.
“Obviously, the SDJM released (Nayak) on bail solely on the ground that the high court had issued the above-mentioned direction. The SDJM had no alternative.”
Quashing the bail, the court said: “If respondent 2 appears and surrenders before the SDJM, Rayagada, on 29/10/2013 and prefers an application for bail, we direct the SDJM… to decide (the) application on merits…. The appellant may remain present in the court and oppose the bail application if he so desires.”
Article referred: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131104/jsp/nation/story_17528138.jsp#.Unp5VfnPH50
Comments
Post a Comment