Constitutional courts cannot encroach upon the discretionary powers of trial courts by prescribing a specific format for writing orders in bail cases, the Supreme Court said.
A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih reaffirmed that Constitutional courts cannot encroach upon the discretionary powers of trial courts by prescribing a specific format for writing orders in bail cases.
“Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of our Trial Courts by laying down the form in which an order should be passed while deciding bail applications. 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,” the Court observed.
The Court was hearing an appeal preferred by a District and Sessions Judge (appellant) challenging the adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against the manner in which the judge had decided a bail application.
The case stemmed from a bail application filed by the accused in an attempt to murder case.
The District and Sessions Judge had rejected the bail plea and the order was subsequently challenged before the Rajasthan High Court.
The High Court granted bail to the accused but while doing so, it also made adverse observations against the Sessions Judge.
It criticised the Sessions Judge for not complying with specific directions of the High Court in Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan regarding the documentation of the accused’s criminal antecedents in a prescribed tabular format in his order rejecting bail.
