Supreme Court seeks explanation after trial judge offers unsolicited advice on granting bail

The Supreme Court has sought explanation from a trial judge for providing unsolicited advice to it on when to grant bail in a case pertaining to an undertrial prisoner seeking bail petition.

The case was related to a bail petition of an accused from West Bengal who had been under trial for the last five years. The top court, after rejecting his plea, asked the trial court to complete the proceedings within three months. Issued on May 11, the court order directed the trial court to submit a report upon disposal of the case, reported TOI’s Amit Anand Chaudhary.

Unable to honour the SC order, the trial judge wrote to the top court seeking more time to conclude the trial. However, the judge, the additional district and sessions judge, the 3rd court, North 24 Parganas at Barasat, also inserted unsolicited advice to the SC on bail jurisprudence with regard to when bail should be granted.


Read more: Supreme Court rules out blanket ban on fireworks in Delhi; bats for time-bound use during Diwali

The Supreme Court bench consisting of J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran expressed shock over the contents of the letter and directed its registry to question the judge’s actions. However, the bench did not reveal the exact phrasing of the letter but noted in its order that the judge offered advice.

"We are quite disturbed with the manner in which the trial judge has addressed a letter to this court requesting some more time. It is not for the presiding officer to convey words of advice as to when this court should grant bail and should not grant bail. The last two paragraphs of the letter are something which we have not appreciated. Registry to call for an appropriate explanation from the presiding officer at the earliest," the bench said, according to TOI.

In the letter dated Aug 11 addressed to the Supreme Court registrar, the judge sought an extension to conclude the trial. The SC in May had fixed the time for completion of the trial and noted the snail’s pace at which the case was proceeding and asked the trial be expedited, as the accused had been languishing in jail for the last five years.

Read more: Ex-SC, HC judges form independent panel to look into SIR issue

"Although the HC was quite confident the remaining 12 witnesses would be examined by May 1, yet it seems not a single witness has been examined... We give one last chance to the state to proceed further with the recording of evidence of the remaining witnesses. We direct the trial court to see to it that the trial is completed within three months from today without fail," the SC said, referring to a Calcutta HC order which had rejected the bail plea in March, saying all witnesses would be examined by the end of April, as reported by TOI.

(With inputs from TOI)