9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Maintainability of petitions filed by advocates for cancellation of bail. 2. Interpretation of Section 439(2) of the CrPC regarding the power to cancel bail. 3. Authority of the Chief Justice in distributing business of the High Court. Issue 1: Maintainability of petitions filed by advocates for cancellation of bail: Seventy-five advocates filed petitions seeking cancellation of bail granted to certain persons involved in a massacre. The Division Bench of the High Court held that these petitions were not maintainable as there was a statutory remedy available for aggrieved parties to file applications/petitions for bail cancellation. The Division Bench emphasized that allowing such representations would flood the court with petitions and delay genuine relief. The Supreme Court agreed that the advocates could not challenge the High Court's order by moving the same court subsequently, and if they had grievances, the proper remedy was to seek special leave from the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 439(2) of the CrPC regarding the power to cancel bail: The Supreme Court clarified that Section 439(2) of the CrPC grants the High Court the power to direct the arrest and custody of a person released on bail. This power can be invoked by the State, any aggrieved party, or even suo motu by the High Court. There is no restriction on who can move the High Court to exercise this power, and if the court deems fit, it can cancel bail based on the reasons presented. The Division Bench's refusal to exercise suo motu powers under Section 439(2) was deemed improper by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the High Court has the authority to consider such matters and cancel bail if necessary. Issue 3: Authority of the Chief Justice in distributing business of the High Court: The Supreme Court highlighted the prerogative of the Chief Justice in distributing the business of the High Court, both judicial and administrative. Quoting a previous judgment, it stated that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and has the sole authority to decide on the constitution of benches, allocation of cases, and assignment of work to judges. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that the petitions submitted by the advocates were not maintainable, as the Chief Justice has the discretion to distribute cases among judges. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order, and directed a Division Bench of the High Court to hear the petitions afresh and dispose of them in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the advocates, emphasizing the importance of considering petitions for bail cancellation and upholding the authority of the High Court to exercise powers under Section 439(2) of the CrPC. The judgment reaffirmed the Chief Justice's prerogative in distributing the business of the High Court and directed a fresh hearing of the petitions by a Division Bench in accordance with legal principles.
|
