Bail – Bail application – Hearing of – High Court has no jurisdiction to direct Sessions Judge to consider bail application of accused and “allow” it on “same day”!

Cr.P.C. Section 439 - High Court granted interim protection with the directions that “Meanwhile, in case the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court within one week from today, he shall be admitted on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court” – Accused surrendered before the trial court who released the accused on bail with the order “In view of the order’s of the High Court, applicant is ordered to be released on bail” - Subsequently on the next date high court dismissed the bail application as being infructuous holding “Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of order dated 11.11.2016 passed by this Court, the petitioner has surrendered before the trial court. Thereafter, the petitioner has been ordered to be released on bail. Accordingly, this petition praying for grant of anticipatory bail the petitioner, has been rendered infructuous. Dismissed as having become infructuous.” - It is unfortunate to note that the order of the High Court on the first instance clearly points out that it has virtually directed the course of action to be undertaken by the subordinate court - It is not expected from the High Court to pass such mandatory orders commanding the subordinate court to compulsorily grant bail. Recently, this court on similar facts in Madan Mohan v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2017, has laid down that courts cannot issue mandatory directions which breach the independence of subordinate courts - Therefore, such circuitous method undertaken by the respondent in obtaining a bail is a gross abuse of the court process undertaken in bad faith - Order of the High Court set aside.