Supreme Court: No Constitutional Court Can Direct Trial Courts To Write Bail Orders In A Particular Manner

 In a given case, if necessary, the court can incorporate a chart as directed in paragraph 9 while deciding a bail application. However, if a High Court directs that in every bail order, a chart should be incorporated in a particular format, it will amount to interference with the discretion conferred on the Trial Courts. Therefore, in our view, what is observed in paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore MANU/RH/0611/2020 : (2020) 4 RLW 3386 cannot be construed as mandatory directions to our Criminal Courts. At the highest, it can be taken as a suggestion which need not be implemented in every case. No Constitutional Court can direct the Trial Courts to write orders on bail applications in a particular manner. One Judge of a Constitutional Court may be of the view that Trial Courts should use a particular format. The other Judge may be of the view that another format is better. {Para 12}

16. Therefore, to conclude, we hold that the directions issued in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jugal Kishore MANU/RH/0611/2020 : (2020) 4 RLW 3386 cannot be said to be binding directions. At the highest, the same shall be treated as suggestions made by the High Court. Non compliance with what is observed in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said decision by a judicial officer cannot be treated as an act of indiscipline or contempt.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 5388 of 2024.

Decided On: 17.12.2024

Ayub Khan Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1347/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The direction of calling for an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order was inappropriate. Explanation of a judicial officer can be called for only on the administrative side.

Secondly, even assuming that the Appellant was guilty of indiscipline, on the judicial side, the High Court ought not to have passed an order calling for an explanation from a judicial officer. The direction of calling for an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order was inappropriate. Explanation of a judicial officer can be called for only on the administrative side. 

{Para 13}

18. The High Court ought to have shown restraint. The High Court cannot damage the career of a judicial officer by passing such orders. The reason is that he cannot defend himself when such orders are passed on the judicial side.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 5388 of 2024.

Decided On: 17.12.2024

Ayub Khan Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1347/2024.

Print Page

Whether prosecution case will stand proved if accused fails to give explanation or gives false explanation?

 It may be necessary here to notice a very forceful argument submitted by the Additional Solicitor-General relying on a decision of this Court in Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0030/1955 : 1955CriLJ1647 , to supplement his argument that if the defence case is false it would constitute an additional link so as to fortify the prosecution case. With due respect to the learned Additional Solicitor General we are unable to agree with the interpretation given by him of the aforesaid case, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus:

But in a case like this where the various links as stated above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation...

such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain.

158. It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to complete the chain but these observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier, viz., before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied:

(1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved.

(2) the said circumstance point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and

(3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.

159. If these conditions are fulfilled only then a Court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the Court and not otherwise.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 1983

Decided On: 17.07.1984

 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Print Page

Whether court can condone delay in bringing legal heirs on record if pathetic explanation is given for same?

Having recorded the aforesaid conclusions, the High Court proceeded to condone the delay. In our opinion, such a course was not open to the High Court, given the pathetic explanation offered by the respondents in the application seeking condonation of delay.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 24 February, 2011

Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy

Citation:2011(4) MHLJ 104:(2011) 4 SCC 363

Print Page