State Rep. by the Inspector of Police vs M. Murugesan & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

15 January 2020

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2020

Result

Allowed

Bench

L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta

Citation

[2020] 2 S.C.R. 553 : 2020 INSC 46

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s. 439 – Bail application under – High Court after deciding the application retained the file and collected data from all the States and in its order gave observations regarding reforms in the criminal justice system – High Court also constituted a Committee and directed it to give its recommendations on the reforms – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Jurisdiction u/s. 439 is limited to grant or not to grant bail – The jurisdiction of High Court came to an end when an application for grant of bail was finally decided – High Court committed grave error in retaining the file after grant of bail.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. The matter before the High Court was as to whether the accused are entitled to be admitted to bail, that is the jurisdiction conferred on the Court in terms of Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Before granting bail, the High Court is enjoined upon an obligation to issue notice of an application for bail to the Public Prosecutor if a person is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, for punishment of imprisonment for life. Single Bench of the High Court has committed grave illegality in retaining the file after grant of bail. The jurisdiction of the High Court came to an end when an application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was finally decided. [Paras 4 and 5][556-G-H; 557-A-B]

2. Single Judge had collated data from the State and made it part of the order after the decision of the bail application as if the Court had the inherent jurisdiction to pass any order under the guise of improving the criminal justice system in the State. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is limited to grant or not to grant bail pending trial. Even though the object of the Hon’ble Judge was laudable, but the jurisdiction exercised was clearly erroneous. The effort made by the Hon’ble Judge may be academically proper to be presented at an appropriate forum but such directions could not be issued under the colour of office of the Court. [Para 11][563-F]

State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 770 : [2011] 15 SCR 540 ; Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee & Anr.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The State is aggrieved against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 24th April, 2019 constituting a Heterogeneous Committee of named persons to give its recommendations on the reforms that can be brought into practice for reformation, rehabilitation and re-integration of the convict/accused person to society and best practices for improving the quality of investigation. The Committee was mandated to submit report within eight weeks and that the State was directed to furnish data for each District. The Comm

View Subscription Plans →