The High Court asked the trial court – how did you give bail? Immediately imposing stay, CJI Chandrachud said – such questions are not right
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in which the High Court had sought clarification from the trial court on granting bail to an accused. In the Supreme Court, a bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala, while hearing the case, said that such an order of the High Court proves to weaken the independence of the district judiciary on bail applications.
The Supreme Court, while hearing, said that it should be noted that the trial court had granted bail to the accused on the ground that he had not committed the offense for which he should be sentenced to life imprisonment. Along with this, his co-accused has also got bail.
What else did CJI Chandrachud say?
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said in his order that ‘there is no justification that the High Court should seek clarification from the trial court for bail and ask on what basis bail was granted? The CJI said that such an order of the High Court severely affects the independence of the District Judiciary to consider bail applications. This is not right.
What else did the Supreme Court say in the verdict?
According to a report in Live Law, the Supreme Court in its judgment said that the accused be released on the same conditions as the trial court. Along with this, the Supreme Court also stayed the decision of the High Court, under which the explanation was sought from the trial court.
CJI refuses to ban media reporting on Adani case
On February 24, in front of a bench of Chief Justice Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala, Advocate ML Sharma filed a petition related to the Hindenburg Research Report on Adani Group and demanded a ban on media reporting in this matter. Dismissing the petition, the CJI said, “We are not going to issue any injunction to the media.”
Earlier on February 17, the Supreme Court had also refused to accept the Centre’s suggestion in a sealed cover in the same matter. The court had said that it wants to maintain complete transparency in the interests of investors. Therefore will not accept the suggestion of the Center in a sealed cover.
