STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE versus M. MURUGESAN & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 15-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
553
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
v.
M. MURUGESAN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2020)
JANUARY 15, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 439 – Bail application under – High Court after deciding
the application retained the file and collected data from all the States
and in its order gave observations regarding reforms in the criminal
justice system – High Court also constituted a Committee and
directed it to give its recommendations on the reforms – Appeal to
Supreme Court – Held: Jurisdiction u/s. 439 is limited to grant or
not to grant bail – The jurisdiction of High Court came to an end
when an application for grant of bail was finally decided – High
Court committed grave error in retaining the file after grant of bail.
Allowing the  appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The matter before the High Court was as to
whether the accused are entitled to be admitted to bail, that is
the jurisdiction conferred on the Court in terms of Section 439 of
Cr.P.C.  Before granting bail, the High Court is 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 which, though not so triable,
for punishment of imprisonment for life. Single Bench of the High
Court has committed grave illegality in retaining the file after
grant of bail. The jurisdiction of the High Court came to an end
when an application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
was finally decided. [Paras 4 and 5][556-G-H; 557-A-B]
2. Single Judge had collated data from the State and made
it part of the order after the decision of the bail application as if
the Court had the 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 Cr.P.C. is limited
to grant or not to grant bail pending trial. Even though the object
   [2020] 2 S.C.R. 553
553
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
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. [Para 11][563-F]
State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors.
(2011) 14 SCC 770 : [2011] 15 SCR 540 ; Simrikhia v.
Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee & Anr.
(1990) 2 SCC 437 : [1990] 1 SCR 788 ; Sangitaben
Shaileshbhai Datanta v. State of Gujarat 2018 SCC
OnLine SC 2300 ; Reserve Bank of India v. General
Manager, Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR. Sha &
Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 85 : [2010] 9 SCR 1107 ; Santosh
Singh v. Union of India & Anr. (2016) 8 SCC 253 :
[2016] 5 SCR 761 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 15 SCR 540
relied on
Para 6
[1990] 1 SCR  788
relied on
Para 7
[2010] 9 SCR 1107
relied on
Para 9
[2016] 5 SCR 761
relied on
Para 10
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 45 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P. No. 1618 of 2019.
M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Meha Aggarwal, Karthik R., Advs. for
the Appellant.
Ms. Nidhi, Vaisal Dathan, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The State is aggrieved against an order passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Madras on 24th April, 2019 constituting a
Heterogeneous Committee of named persons to give its recommendations
on the reforms that can be brought into practice for reformation,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
555
rehabilitation and re-integration of the convict/accused person to society
and best practices for improving the quality of investigation.  The
Committee was mandated to submit report within eight weeks and that
the State was directed to furnish data for each District.  The Committee
was to scrutinize the same and submit the final data separately along
with the report.  The State was directed to provide office room for the
Committee to conduct its meetings and to keep the documents and other
materials in safe custody.
2. Such directions came to be passed in a matter pertaining to
grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731.
The High Court had admitted the accused to bail on 18th February, 2019
subject to certain conditions but passed an order to call for the details of
the cases registered by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.