Whether high court can direct magistrate to release accused on bail?

As could be seen from the above said paragraph of Kartar Singh case (supra) this Court has made it very clear that High Court has no power to entertain an application for bail Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has made further clear that the power should be exercised sparingly relating to the cases under the 1987 Act, that too only in rare and appropriate cases in extreme circumstances. Upon the said passage from the judgment of Kartar Singh case (supra), learned senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has placed strong reliance in justification of the order passed by the High Court in giving direction to the learned Magistrate regarding the bail application that would be filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The reliance upon the aforesaid passage from the judgment of Katar Singh case has no application to the fact situation for the reason that the High Court has neither given any reason, whatsoever, for exercising its power sparingly and also not mentioned that the case for grant of such direction is in extreme circumstances. In the absence of not assigning such reasons the learned senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 cannot place reliance upon the said decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court. Therefore, we have to accept the submission made by learned senior Counsel for the Appellant that exercise of power by the High Court giving mandatory direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the bail application that would be filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and enlarge them on bail on furnishing personal bonds and one surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, the said direction is contrary to the decision of this Court extracted in paragraph 22 in Hema Mishra case (supra) upon which reliance has rightly been placed by learned senior Counsel for the Appellant. In our opinion, the submission made by learned senior Counsel for the Appellant is well founded. We must accept the same. The direction to the learned Magistrate to enlarge the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on bail is contrary to the law laid down by this Court, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Consequently, we allow this appeal and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and we remand the matter to the learned Magistrate to consider the bail application afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Crl. A. No. 426 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9603 of 2014)

Decided On: 10.03.2015

 Mahima Savin Bansal
Vs.
Savin Bansal and Ors.

Coram:V. Gopala Gowda and C. Nagappan, JJ.

Citation:(2015) 16 SCC228

Print Page

Whether civil court can issue direction for making or deleting entries in records of rights?

It is true that the prayer made in plaint is not properly worded. Instead of seeking a declaration of his title, the respondent No. 1 had prayed for deletion of the names of the appellant and other respondents from the record of rights in respect of the suit lands and to enter his name therein. It is neither the function nor the jurisdiction of civil court to issue direction for making or deleting entries in the records of rights. That is the function assigned to the revenue authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Court. The proper relief which respondent No. 1 could have prayed for was declaration of his title to the suit lands on the basis of the will executed by deceased Mugu Balu Teli. Once he obtains such a declaration from the court, the revenue authority will have to make or correct the entries accordingly in the record of rights in respect of the suit lands. Although, therefore, the appeal is being dismisses, the order and decree passed by the courts below will have to be suitably modified.

Bombay High Court

Narayan Mugu Teli, Since Deceased ... vs Ramchandra Mugu Teli And Ors. on 9 December, 2003

Bench: J Patil

Citation;2004 (3) ALL MR 880

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court while issuing directions

The direction issued by the Court is in the nature of a command or authoritative instruction which contemplates the performance of certain duty or act by a person upon whom it has been issued. The direction should be specific, simple, clear and just and proper depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case but it should not be vague or sweeping.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1706-1708 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 364-366 of 2010)

Arun Kumar Aggarwal vs State Of M.P.& Ors. on 2 September, 2011
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, H.L. Dattu

Print Page