Shuvendu Saha vs The State of West Bengal and Anr.

Held: On a perusal of the above order, it is clear that all parameters for deciding a bail application filed u/s.437 CrPC (corresponding s.480 of the BNSS) were considered by the Magistrate and even the respondent no.2-complainant was provided an opportunity of hearing – There was no justification for the Single Judge of the High Court to have interfered with the order granting bail, more so after a lapse of nearly eight years from the date of order granting bail – The issues highlighted in the complaint were predominantly having civil overtones, and yet the Single Judge proceeded to decide the revision as if it involved questions of grave legal importance – Once the trial Court had exercised jurisdiction u/s.437 CrPC to affirm the order of interim bail passed in favour of the accused, the same could only be cancelled or set aside on the principles governing cancellation of bail laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions – The discretion of the High Court was heavily swayed by the reason that safety of the respondent no.2-complainant was at risk, was far removed from reality – The order of the High Court does not reflect or refer to any such event or incident which may have caused any life threat or risk to the respondent no.2-complainant – The view taken by the High Court is wholly perverse, apart from being in gross disregard of the mandate of s.437 of CrPC – A Rule (Rule 183 of the Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985) contained in the Criminal Rules and Orders, which governs the procedural aspects of day-to-day functioning of criminal Courts, could not have been invoked to override the substantive mandate of the CrPC unless a gross failure of justice was demonstrated in the proceedings – No palpable material on record to show that the Magistrate had substantially breached the procedure provided under the said rule – The impugned order is audaciously perverse and illegal, and hence, the same cannot be sustained. [Paras 21, 22, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33]

Judiciary – Adverse remarks – Castigation of Judicial Officers – Recording of adverse remarks/strictures against them by the High Court – Power of superintendence is not a tool of oppression:

Held: It has become a trend to castigate Judicial Officers and record adverse remarks/strictures against them in judicial orders passed by the High Court in the exercise of supervisory, appellate or revisional jurisdiction – The High Court, being a Court of record in the State, is expected to act as the guardian of the Officers in district judiciary – While finding infirmities in the order passed by a Judicial Officer, the immediate reaction ought not to be to make adverse or disparaging observations against the concerned Judicial Officer in a judicial dispensation – Such disparaging remarks/strictures may ruin the career of the Judicial Officer in addition to demoralising the district judiciary as a whole – Power of superintendence conferred upon the High Courts by Art.227 of the Constitution of India ought not to be used as a tool of oppression but rather as a mechanism for nurturing and guiding the Judicial Officers in the State. [Paras 35, 36]

Constitution of India – Art.227 – Power of Superintendence conferred upon the High Court – Mechanism to guide Judicial Officers – Merits or quality of the order to be noted on the remark slip:

Held: In some High Courts an in-house mechanism is already in place to take care of a situation, whenever any flaw or infirmity is noted in any order passed by the trial Judge by the High Court while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction – The observations of the Hon’ble Judge/Bench on the merits or quality of the order or the proceedings of the presiding officer of the trial Court can be noted in a remark slip which, in turn, would be placed before the administrative Judge or the Chief Justice of the High Court, as the case may be, for necessary follow-up action. [Para 37] Constitution of India – Art.227 – Power of Superintendence conferred upon the High Court – Merits or quality of the order passed by Judicial Officers – A format of remark-slip – Illustrated. [Para 38]