Skip to main content

HCs can’t force bail on trial courts: SC

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

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...