Supreme Court Expresses Anguish At Trial Courts Acting In Violation Of Its Judgments On Bail & Remand

The Supreme Court reprimanded a Trial Court for issuing non bailable warrants to accused on the filing of the chargesheet, despite the fact that they had been cooperating and appearing through counsels. The Court noted that the action of the trial court was in violation of the mandate in the case Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh LL 2021 SC 391.

In Siddharth, the Court had observed that the practice of some Trial Courts of insisting on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the charge-sheet on record is misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

As per the facts of the case, the charge sheet was filed in the matter and during that period the appellants cooperated with the authorities too. However, the appellants did not appear before the Court personally but through a counsel. In this context, the issue raised before the court was whether the action of the trial Court to issue non-bailable warrant could be sustained.

It may be noted that the counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that no further investigation was required in the matter. At the outset, the court noted that the decision of the trial court to issue non-bailable warrants in the given circumstances also violated the mandate incorporated in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. – 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577.

In Satinder Kumar Antil, a bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundersh, expressing concerns at the large number of undertrials languishing in jails, issued elaborate guidelines to ease the process of bail. The judgment also emphasized that accused should not be remanded in a mechanical manner.  

Last week, these judgements were also directed to be made part of the curriculum of State Judicial Academies, where judicial officers are given training.

The court in its order stated–

"We fail to understand why despite these judgments having been circulated, some of the trial Courts are conducting and passing the orders in the teeth of these judgments. It is a matter of concern that these cases thus, keep on coming up to the apex Court unnecessarily."

Further, the court noted that the High Court's order calling upon the appellants to surrender, despite recognizing the fact that they are aged persons in their 70s and the alleged offences has a maximum punishment up to seven years, was erroneous. The court noted–

"We would normally expect that even in the District Courts, in the Covid period, arrangements would have been made for virtual hearing. It is not as if the virtual method of appearing before the Court has to be abandoned as this is an alternative method of appearance now which is to be followed by different Courts."

Accordingly, the impugned orders were set aside.

Case Title: Chandmal v. State of MP | Criminal Appeal No. 359 /2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 94

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv. Mr. Parikshit Ahuja, Adv. Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv. Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv. Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv. Ms. Garima Verma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Ankit Mishra, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Adv

Bail & Remand : Supreme Court expresses anguish at trial courts acting in violation of its judgments in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh LL 2021 SC 391 & Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. – 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577- We fail to understand why despite these judgments having been circulated, some of the trial Courts are conducting and passing the orders in the teeth of these judgments. It is a matter of concern that these cases thus, keep on coming up to the apex Court unnecessarily.

Virtual Hearing - We would normally expect that even in the District Courts, in the Covid period, arrangements would have been made for virtual hearing. It is not as if the virtual method of appearing before the Court has to be abandoned as this is an alternative method of appearance now which is to be followed by different Courts.

Click Here To Read Order