Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From MP Sessions Judge For Ignoring Its Bail Order, Asks HC To Send Him For Training

The Supreme Court recently frowned upon the conduct of a judicial officer who overlooked the directions passed by the Apex Court in a bail matter. Terming the case to be 'shocking', it issued a show cause notice to the judicial officer as to why no strict view should be taken against him. 

The Court also requested the Chief Justice of the MP High Court to send the judicial officer, an Additional Sessions Judge, for a week-long training. 

The bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a matter related to compliance with its previous bail order, dated January 24, where it granted bail to the accused/petitioner. 

As per the January 24 order, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court. When the petitioner approached the Trial Court, the condition set for his release was compliance with the fine awarded, against which the appeal was already admitted and pending. 

When the petitioner again moved the Supreme Court, the Court on March 7 directed  that " In continuation of our dated 24.01.2025, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount."

The trial court, in its order dated March 8, had  (1) sought a copy of the interim application filed by the accused before the Supreme Court to verify if the Trial Court's order dated 17.2.25 was challenged before the Apex Court;

(2) It noted that the interim application filed before the Supreme Court by the accused challenged the trial court's 17.02.2025 order concerning whether ₹5 lakh already deposited should be adjusted against the penalty post-conviction. However, the Trial Court observed that the Supreme Court's order dated 24.01.2025 does not explicitly address this issue but continues its earlier direction, allowing release on two sureties of ₹25,000 each. As no clear relief on the penalty deposit was granted, the trial court held that, unless clarified otherwise, the fine remains payable.

Nonetheless, given the accused's right to personal liberty and assurance to seek clarification, the trial court directed release upon furnishing two sureties and a personal bond, in addition to the payment of fine.

The trial court also asked him to produce within 30 days the order of the Supreme Court or High Court allowing the adjustment of the previously deposited Rs ₹5 lakh or relieving him from requirement to deposit fine.

Taking objection to the observations made by the Trial Court, the present bench held that the Trial Court's order " discloses total lack of understanding by the Trial Court and, in fact, amounts to a clear overreach of the orders of this Court. Even the language and tenor of the order is objectionable."

Further, it directed the judicial officer to submit a show cause as to why no strict actions should be taken against him. The Chief Justice of the MP High Court was also requested to send the Judicial Officer to a week of training to sensitise him on the need to comply with the Supreme Court's orders.