'Trial Judges Shouldn't Be Placed In A Sense Of Fear' : Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Seeking Explanation From Judge For Granting Bail

The Supreme Court has strongly deprecated the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court to seek explanation from a trial court judge for granting bail in a case. Such orders passed by the higher judiciary will have a "chilling effect" on the district judiciary, reminded the Supreme Court while setting aside the High Court's order.

"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 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", observed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala.

The bench also noted that the trial court's order granting bail did not indicate that wrong principles of law were applied. The trial court placed reliance on relevant factors such as the filing of the chargesheet in the offence, release of the co-accused on bail etc., opined the Top Court.

The appellant was named as an accused in an FIR relating to alleged assault of the complainant. The first application for bail was rejected by the Trial court. Later, the High Court also declined to grant bail to the appellant. The application was dismissed as withdrawn while granting liberty to the appellant to file a fresh application for bail after the passage of reasonable time. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the competent court and the appellant again moved the Trial court for bail. The Trial Judge, noting that a second regular bail application had been submitted by the appellant, granted bail on the ground that the charge-sheet had been submitted and the other accused have been granted bail. 

However, a Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh cancelled the bail and observed that the Trial Court had granted bail to the appellant without taking into account an earlier order of the High Court rejecting bail. The High Court observed that the mere fact that the charge-sheet had been filed could not be considered as a change in circumstances. The High Court has 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. 

While noting that 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 Supreme Court held that the order of the High Court was "wholly disproportionate and was not warranted". The bench added–

"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."

Accordingly, the order of the High Court was set aside and the application for cancellation of bail was dismissed. 

Case Title: Totaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 2269/2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Bail - 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 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

Click Here To Read/Download Order