In a significant legal pronouncement, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justices Sangeeta Chandra, Pankaj Bhatia, and Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, has clarified the jurisdictional boundaries concerning the granting of bail when the High Court has issued non-bailable warrants (NBWs) in appeals against acquittal or conviction. The court held that subordinate courts, including Magistrates and Sessions Judges, lack the authority to release individuals on bail under such circumstances.
Background of the Case
The issue arose from conflicting directives within the Allahabad High Court's benches. In January 2024, a Division Bench at Allahabad/Prayagraj issued general directions permitting Chief Judicial Magistrates (CJMs) or other Magistrates to grant bail to individuals, even when NBWs had been issued by the High Court in appeals against acquittal or conviction. Specifically, the directions stated that upon the execution of an NBW, the accused should be admitted to bail by the CJM or Ilaka Magistrate upon furnishing bail bonds and providing an undertaking to appear before the High Court on a specified date.
However, in March 2024, a Division Bench at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court expressed disagreement with these directives. The Lucknow Bench questioned the jurisdiction of subordinate courts to grant bail in cases where the High Court had consciously issued NBWs to secure the presence of the accused. This disagreement led to a reference to a Full Bench to resolve the jurisdictional conflict.
Legal Questions Addressed
The Full Bench was tasked with addressing two primary questions:
Whether a CJM or any other Magistrate can enlarge an acquitted person or a person convicted of an offense on bail when the High Court has issued an NBW in an appeal against acquittal or conviction, without any stipulation in the High Court's order permitting such release by the subordinate court.
Whether an appeal, either against acquittal or conviction, can be heard by appointing an amicus curiae for the accused-respondent or the convicted appellant, in the event they are not appearing in the proceedings, though their presence can be secured, without their consent and without any intimation to them, and if so, under what circumstances.
Full Bench's Analysis and Conclusions
Upon thorough examination, the Full Bench concluded that when the High Court has consciously issued an NBW for the arrest of an accused in an appeal against acquittal or conviction, the intention is to commit the accused or appellant to custody. In such situations, subordinate courts, including CJMs and Sessions Judges, do not possess the jurisdiction to release the individual on bail. The court emphasized that the fate of the accused or appellant is governed by the specific terms of the High Court's order under which the NBW was issued.
The bench stated:
"Neither C.J.M. nor Session Judge would have jurisdiction to release such appellant or accused on bail irrespective of the fact whether the non-bailable warrant has been issued in an appeal against acquittal or in an appeal against conviction."
The court further directed that if such an appellant or accused is arrested and committed to prison, the CJM or Sessions Judge concerned must promptly inform the High Court about the arrest.
Clarification on Bailable Warrants
The Full Bench also provided clarity regarding situations involving bailable warrants. It held that when the High Court issues a bailable warrant, subordinate courts have the discretion to release the appellant or accused on bail. This release is contingent upon the individual furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the subordinate court and providing an undertaking to appear before the High Court on a specified date.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling delineates the boundaries of jurisdiction between the High Court and subordinate courts concerning bail matters, especially in cases where the High Court has issued NBWs. It underscores the authority of the High Court's orders and ensures that subordinate courts adhere strictly to directives concerning the custody of individuals in appellate proceedings.
By clarifying that subordinate courts lack jurisdiction to grant bail in cases where the High Court has issued NBWs, the ruling aims to maintain the integrity and intent of the High Court's orders. It also ensures that the process of securing the presence of accused individuals in appellate proceedings is not undermined by conflicting decisions at the subordinate court level.
In summary, the Full Bench's decision reinforces the hierarchical judicial structure and the binding nature of the High Court's directives on subordinate courts, particularly in matters involving the issuance of non-bailable warrants in appeals against acquittal or conviction.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.