Summary
In revision against summoning additional accused, the High Court directed the Sessions Judge to consider and allow their bail application on the day of filing. The Supreme Court set aside that direction because it displaced the trial court’s independent judicial discretion. It also held that the complainant, whose application led to summoning, should have been heard in revision.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could direct the Sessions Judge to allow the accused persons’ bail application.
- Whether the complainant was a necessary party to the revision against the order passed on his application.
Held
- The complainant was a necessary party alongside the State and entitled to a hearing in revision because the impugned summoning order had been passed on his application under section193 of the Code. (¶ 14)
- A superior court cannot command a subordinate court to allow or reject an application that the subordinate court must independently adjudicate. The Sessions Judge must apply judicial discretion to the facts and applicable bail principles and give reasons for granting or refusing bail. (¶ 15–20)
- The High Court could permit the accused to approach the Sessions Judge and require expeditious consideration on the merits in accordance with law, but could not prescribe allowance of bail. Cognizance against the additional accused was not questioned before the Supreme Court. (¶ 21–24)
Result
Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside the direction to consider and allow bail on the same day. Sessions Judge to decide any bail application on its merits and in accordance with law, if not already decided.