Supreme Court explains: Jurisdiction of Court u/s. 439 of CrPC is limited to grant or not to grant Bail pending Trial (Read Judgement)

The bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta passed judgment in the case titled State v. M. Murugesan & anr.

The issue before the High Court of Judicature at Madras was whether the accused are entitled to bail, in view of the jurisdiction conferred on the Court in terms of Section 439 of the Code. Before granting bail, the High Court was enjoined upon an obligation to issue notice of an application for bail to the Public Prosecutor if a person is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or punishment for which is imprisonment for life.

The Supreme Court found that, “Hon’ble Single Bench has committed grave illegality in retaining the file after grant of bail to the accused. The jurisdiction of the High Court came to an end when an application for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code was finally decided.”

The order of the High Court was found gravely erroneous by the Supreme Court;

“We find that learned Single Judge has collated data from the State and made it part of the order after the decision of the bail application as if the Court had inherent jurisdiction to pass any order under the guise of improving the criminal justice system in the State. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 439 of the Code is limited to grant or not to grant bail pending trial. Even though the object of the Hon’ble Judge was laudable but the jurisdiction exercised was clearly erroneous. The effort made by the Hon’ble Judge may be academically proper to be presented at an appropriate forum but such directions could not be issued under the colour of office of the Court.”

The Supreme Court of India set aside the order passed by the High Court finding it to be unsustainable in law.

Read the Judgment: