Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court No superior Court in hierarchical jurisdiction can issue such direction/mandamus to any subordinate Court commanding them to pass a particular order MANU/SC/1599/2017 - (14 Dec 2017) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Madan Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Present appeal is filed by the Complainant against the final judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature whereby the High Court partly allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein and set aside that part of the order passed by the Sessions Judge, whereby the Session Judge while allowing the application filed under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Appellant (Complainant) issued non-bailable warrants against Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for their arrest. 
Supreme Court is of opinion that, the Single Judge seemed to have passed impugned order without application of judicial mind as he committed two glaring errors while passing the order. First, he failed to see that, the Complainant at whose instance the Sessions Judge had passed the order and had allowed his application under Section 193 of CrPC was a necessary party to the criminal revision along with the State. Therefore, he should have been impleaded as Respondent along with the State in the revision. The Complainant also had a right of hearing in the Revision because the order impugned in the Revision was passed by the Session Judge on his application. This aspect of the case was, however, not noticed by the Single Judge. 
The Single Judge grossly erred in giving direction to the Sessions Judge to consider the bail application of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and "allow" it on the "same day". The High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Sessions Judge to "allow" the application for grant of bail. Indeed, once such direction had been issued by the High Court then what was left for the Sessions Judge to decide except to follow the directions of the High Court and grant bail to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In compliance to the mandatory directions issued by the High Court, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to reject the bail application but to allow it. 
No superior Court in hierarchical jurisdiction can issue such direction/mandamus to any subordinate Court commanding them to pass a particular order on any application filed by any party. The judicial independence of every Court in passing the orders in cases is well settled. It cannot be interfered with by any Court including superior Court. 
When an order is passed, it can be questioned by the aggrieved party in appeal or revision, as the case may be, to the superior Court. It is then for the Appellate/Revisionary Court to decide as to what orders need to be passed in exercise of its Appellate/Revisionary jurisdiction. Even while remanding the case to the subordinate Court, the Superior Court cannot issue a direction to the subordinate Court to either "allow" the case or "reject" it. If any such directions are issued, it would amount to usurping the powers of that Court and would amount to interfering in the discretionary powers of the subordinate Court. Such order is, therefore, not legally sustainable. 
It is the sole discretion of the Sessions Judge to find out while hearing the bail application as to whether any case on facts is made out for grant of bail by the Accused or not. In either case, i.e., to grant or reject, the Sessions Judge has to apply his independent judicial mind and accordingly pass appropriate reasoned order keeping in view the facts involved in the case and the legal principles applicable for grant/rejection of the bail. In this case, the Single Judge failed to keep in his mind this legal principle. 
Such directions were wholly uncalled for and should not have been given. This Court cannot countenance issuing of such direction by the High Court. Direction given by the High Court to the Sessions Judge to "consider and allow" the bail application made by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 on the same day on which it was moved is set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Bail, Direction, Validity</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>