2001 (9) TMI 1145 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the bail granted by the Sessions Judge.
2. Authority of Inspecting Judges to grant bail during inspections.
3. Scope of the High Court's power of superintendence u/Article 227 and control u/Article 235 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Bail Granted by the Sessions Judge:
The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody under Sections 469/467, 468/218-120B of IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. After his bail application was initially rejected, the appellant moved another application on 24.4.2003. During an inspection on 29.4.2003, the Administrative Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, noting no objection from police officers, directed the Sessions Judge to consider the bail application. The Sessions Judge initially dismissed the application but granted bail the next day upon being reminded of the Administrative Judge's order. Subsequently, a complaint led to the cancellation of the bail by the Administrative Judge, prompting the appellant to appeal.

2. Authority of Inspecting Judges to Grant Bail During Inspections:
The Supreme Court examined the practice of Inspecting Judges receiving and acting on bail applications during jail inspections. The Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court reported that some Inspecting Judges had granted bail orders during inspections, while others merely directed applications to be processed according to law. The Chief Justice denied authorizing any Judge to pass bail orders during inspections, emphasizing that such actions were beyond their jurisdiction.

3. Scope of the High Court's Power of Superintendence u/Article 227 and Control u/Article 235 of the Constitution:
The Court clarified that the power of superintendence u/Article 227 is both administrative and judicial but does not allow High Courts to influence subordinate courts' judicial functions. This power ensures that subordinate courts operate within their authority without interference in their judicial independence. Similarly, Article 235 grants High Courts control over subordinate courts' administrative matters but does not extend to directing judicial orders. The Court cited precedents, including Waryam Singh vs. Amarnath and Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim, to reinforce that the High Court's supervisory role is limited to ensuring proper functioning within legal bounds and does not include correcting judicial errors or influencing judicial decisions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that Inspecting Judges should not perform judicial work, such as granting bail, during inspections. They may receive complaints or petitions to be forwarded to the appropriate court or the Registry of the High Court for proper action. The appeal was disposed of with the observation that the accused had already been released on bail.