Trial judge’s refusal to release man on SC order irks Bench

A Mumbai trial judge’s act of defiance in refusing to release a man who was ordered by the Supreme Court to be released on bail irked the Vacation Bench of the apex court on Thursday. Wondering if the trial judge considered himself to be above the Supreme Court, the Bench took exception to the trial judge’s conduct in finding fault with the apex court’s May 17 order granting bail to an accused.

The trial judge in his May 21 order said that the SC order did not mention the sum of bail bond to be executed by the accused and on this ground turned down his bail plea. On Thursday, the Vacation Bench of Justices LN Rao and M Mohan Shantanagouder was confronted with this order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

"We have passed the bail order and the Magistrate court is saying the Supreme Court does not know how to grant bail…Is the ACMM (Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate) above us, Is the ACMM an appellate court of the Supreme Court?," asked the bench.

The counsel for the accused showed the copy of the trial court order of May 21 and said that the ground on which bail was refused was insignificant. The bench agreed with the counsel and observed, "The ACMM should realize that once an order is passed by the Supreme Court directing release of the petitioner on bail and there is no mention about the bail amount, it is incumbent on the trial court to fix the amount for the bail bond….refusing to release the petitioner on bail citing the ground that bail amount has not been mentioned in our order is not justified."

The accused faced multiple FIRs with regard to criminal conspiracy and cheating in a case of misrepresenting facts while availing loans from a consortium of banks. On May 17, the apex court ordered the accused to be enlarged on bail on the condition that he will cooperate with the investigation in all cases lodged against him.