MADAN MOHAN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 14-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017) 12 S.C.R. 222 
MADAN MOHAN 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No.2178 of2017) 
DECEMBER 14, 2017 
[R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Party: Necessary party - Criminal case - Complainant-
appellant filed application under s. I 93 praying for summoning 
respondent no.2 and 3 along with the other accused to face trial as 
they were also involved in the commission of offence along with the 
other accused persons - Sessions judge allowed the application 
and accordingly summoned respondent no.2 and 3 issuing non-
bailable warrant of arrest against them - Respondent no.2 and 3 
filed revision - Complainant-appellant at whose instance the order 
was passed by the Sessions judge, howeper, was not impleaded as 
party in the reFision - Single judge of High Court allowed the 
revision in part and set aside the portion of the order of Sessions 
judge which had directed issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest 
of respondent no.2 a11d 3 while maintaining summoning order -
011 appeal, Held: The Single judge of High Court failed to see that 
the complai11ant at whose instance the Sessions Judge had passed 
the order and had allowed his application under s. I 93 was a 
necessary party to the criminal reFision along with the State - The 
complainant should have been impleaded as respondent along with 
the State in the revision - In other words, the complainant also had 
a right of hearing in the revision because the order impugned in the 
revision was passed by the Session Judge on his application. 
Judicial propriety: Judicial independence - While remanding 
the case to the subordinate court, the superior court cannot issue a 
direction to the subordinate court to either "allow" the case or 
"reject" it -
No superior Court in hierarchical jurisdiction can 
issue such direction/mandamus to any subordinate court 
commanding them to pass a particular order on any application 
filed by any party - The judicial independence of every Court in 
passing the orders in cases is well settled - It cannot be inteifered 
with by any Court including superior Court - In the instant case, ; 
222 
MADAN MOHAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
223 
single judge of High Court set aside the portion of the order of A 
Sessions judge which had directed issuance of non-bailable warrant 
of arrest of respondent no.2 and 3 while summoning them - High 
Court then proceeded to issue further direction to respondent no.2 
and 3 to surrender before the trial court and move the application 
for regular bail which would be considered and allowed by that . B 
court on the same day on which it is moved - Such directions amount 
to usurping the powers of that Court and would amount to interfering 
in tlze discretionary powers of the subordinate Court - Such order 
is, therefore, not legally sustainable. 
Bail: Duty/power of court while deciding bail application -
Held: It is the sole discretion of the Sessions Judge to find out while 
hearing the bail application as to whether any case on facts is made 
out for grant of bail by the accused or not - If made out then to 
grant the bail and if not made out, to reject the bail - In either case, 
i.e., to grant or reject, the Sessions Judge has to apply his 
independent judicial mind and accordingly pass appropriate 
reasoned order keeping in view the j{1cts involved in the case and 
the legal pri11ciples applirnb!e for grant/rejection of the bail. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The complainant should have been impleaded as 
respondent along with the State in the revision. In other words, 
the Complainant also had a right of hearing in the Revision 
because the order impugned in the Revision was passed by the 
Session Judge on his application. This aspect of the case was, 
however, not noticed by the Single Judge. Second and more 
importantly was that the Single Judge grossly erred in giving 
direction to the Sessions Judge to consider the bail application 
of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and "allow" it on the "same day". 
The High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Sessions Judge 
to "allow" the application for grant of bail. Indeed, once such 
direction had been issued by the High Court then what was left 
for the Sessions Judge to decide except to follow the directions 
of the High Court and grant bail to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In 
other words, in compliance to the mandatory directions issued 
by the High Court, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to 
r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.