Supreme Court: Sets Aside Adverse Remarks By Rajasthan HC Against A Session Judge; ‘Discourage Trial Courts In Granting Bail’

The Supreme Court in the case Sarita Swami vs State of Rajasthan observed and has set aside some observations made by Rajasthan High Court against a Trial Court judge who had passed a bail order.
The bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and the Justice Abhay S. Oka observed and has stated that such an approach which has discouraged the trial Courts for granting bail which has resulted in huge volume of litigation before this Court and the High Court.
The court while considering an application wherein seeking cancellation of bail, it has been noticed by the Rajasthan High Court that the first bail application filled by the accused has been dismissed by the session Judge on the merits and after a lapse of 20 days, the court allowed the second bail application on the ground that after investigation, offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, was found instead of Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Further, it has been noted by the court that the Investigating Officer at that time had not submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-and no change in the circumstances took place. The High Court has made some adverse remarks against the judge in the order and also directed Registry to place this matter before the Chief Justice for taking appropriate action against the Sessions
Judge on the Administrative side.
It was observed that the Session Judge who passed the bail order, approached the Apex Court, wherein challenging such adverse observations made in the order.
The bench observed and has stated that in the given scenario the observations are not called and in fact it is such an approach which discourages the trial Courts granting bail which resulted in huge volume of litigation before the High Court and this Court. Thus, the court does not have any hesitation in setting aside the observations which is made against the appellant and consequently, even the directions contained in the impugned order are set aside against the appellant
While speaking at the public event, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had stated that judges at trial courts are often reluctant to grant bail due to fear of targeting.