The High Court’s decision to order both the immediate arrest of the accused and a show-cause notice for the judge was improper, the Supreme Court ruled.
In the recent case of Totaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh & anr., the Supreme Court objected to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s request for an explanation from a sessions judge regarding an order he had issued granting bail to an accused person.
According to a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, it was improper for the High Court to order the immediate arrest of the accused while also issuing a show-cause notice to the judge.
Such orders, according to the top court, can intimidate the district judiciary.
“The High Court’s order ordering the appellant’s immediate arrest and requesting an explanation from the Second Additional Sessions Judge was completely excessive and unwarranted. Such High Court decisions intimidate district judges. According to the apex court’s order from April 6, “the district judiciary members cannot be made to feel intimidated if they exercise the legal authority entrusted to them for granting bail in appropriate cases.
The sessions judge had issued the bail order after giving proper consideration to the nature of the offense and case developments, the apex court added.
It thus nullified the judgment of the High Court.
The Supreme Court was debating an appeal against the High Court’s decision to revoke the appellant’s bail in December 2022.
In June 2022, the complainant was allegedly attacked, stripped, and tied to a tree by the appellant.
The High Court had noted that the filing of a chargesheet could not have been viewed as a change in circumstances justifying the sessions judge’s grant of bail.
Therefore, it had revoked the bail order and instructed the police to detain the appellant right away.
The accused then filed a petition with the supreme court, which in February stayed the High Court’s decision, granted bail to the petitioner, and gave notice of the case.
By virtue of the order from April 6, the High Court’s decision tornadicating bail was overturned, and the interim bail was made permanent.
In support of the accused appellant, attorney Rekha Pandey was present. The respondents were represented by attorney Anuradha Mutatker.
Written By- Tushar Vashisth students of 3rd year BBA LLB at Chandigarh University
0 Comments