[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: Setting aside an MP high court notice to a trial judge asking why he had granted bail to an accused facing trial for stripping a man and tying him to a tree before assaulting him, the Supreme Court on Thursday said such “unwarranted” orders by constitutional courts had a “chilling effect” on judicial officers.
Noticing that the accused was lodged in jail as an undertrial for four months since the incident last June, a bench of CJI Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala said since a chargesheet had been filed in the case and other accused had been granted bail, the trial judge was correct in granting bail to accused Totaram.
The bench did not accept the arguments for cancellation of the bail in February 24 even after the complainant’s counsel pleaded that the accused made a video of the incident after stripping and assaulting him, causing him ignominy and loss of reputation.
Taking up the HC’s decision to send a showcause notice to the trial judge for granting bail to the accused, the CJI-led bench said, “The HC’s decision to seek explanation from the trial judge was unwarranted. Such orders from the HC produce a chilling effect on the district judicial officer.
“They cannot be put in fear of giving explanation to high courts while exercising their powers and discretion to grant bail in criminal cases to accused. The order of the trial court granting bail to the accused was fair and reasonable. The HC cancelled the bail applying wrong principles of law.”
While granting bail to Totaram on February 24, the CJI had disapproved of HC judges seeking explanations from district judicial officers for passing certain orders and said such actions affected the independence of district judiciary.
Frowning upon the practice of seeking explanation from subordinate judicial officers, the CJI-led bench had said, “Such orders of the high court seriously affect the independence of the district judiciary in considering applications for bail in appropriate cases.”
The trial court had in August last year granted bail to Totaram in a criminal case, just 10 days after the chargesheet was filed on noticing that other accused in the case had been granted bail and that the offences alleged against the accused was not punishable with either life or death sentences.
The HC, while setting aside the order of the trial court granting bail to Totaram, had on December 2 issued a notice to the trial court seeking an explanation in regard to the order granting bail.
Noticing that the accused was lodged in jail as an undertrial for four months since the incident last June, a bench of CJI Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala said since a chargesheet had been filed in the case and other accused had been granted bail, the trial judge was correct in granting bail to accused Totaram.
The bench did not accept the arguments for cancellation of the bail in February 24 even after the complainant’s counsel pleaded that the accused made a video of the incident after stripping and assaulting him, causing him ignominy and loss of reputation.
Taking up the HC’s decision to send a showcause notice to the trial judge for granting bail to the accused, the CJI-led bench said, “The HC’s decision to seek explanation from the trial judge was unwarranted. Such orders from the HC produce a chilling effect on the district judicial officer.
“They cannot be put in fear of giving explanation to high courts while exercising their powers and discretion to grant bail in criminal cases to accused. The order of the trial court granting bail to the accused was fair and reasonable. The HC cancelled the bail applying wrong principles of law.”
While granting bail to Totaram on February 24, the CJI had disapproved of HC judges seeking explanations from district judicial officers for passing certain orders and said such actions affected the independence of district judiciary.
Frowning upon the practice of seeking explanation from subordinate judicial officers, the CJI-led bench had said, “Such orders of the high court seriously affect the independence of the district judiciary in considering applications for bail in appropriate cases.”
The trial court had in August last year granted bail to Totaram in a criminal case, just 10 days after the chargesheet was filed on noticing that other accused in the case had been granted bail and that the offences alleged against the accused was not punishable with either life or death sentences.
The HC, while setting aside the order of the trial court granting bail to Totaram, had on December 2 issued a notice to the trial court seeking an explanation in regard to the order granting bail.
#Higher #courts #seeking #explanations #trial #judges #chilling #effect #India #News
