NEW DELHI: It sounds inconceivable that a trial judge will advise the top court of the country on how to decide a case. But it happened recently, and the judge is now in trouble, with the Supreme Court seeking an explanation from him for advising it on when to grant bail.The case pertains to the bail petition of an accused from West Bengal who has been an undertrial prisoner for the last five years, and the apex court, while rejecting his plea, had asked the trial court to complete the proceedings within three months. The order, which was passed on May 11, directed the trial court to file a report after disposal of the case.As the trial court could not honour the SC order, the judge wrote to the apex court seeking more time to conclude the trial. But the judge, the additional district and sessions judge, 3rd court, North 24 Parganas at Barasat, also gave some unsolicited advice to the apex court on bail jurisprudence – when to grant bail and when not.After reading the letter, which was placed before a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, the court expressed shock over its contents, which were uncalled for and directed its registry to ask the judge why he wrote what he wrote. The bench, however, did not reveal the exact wording of the letter but noted in its order that the judge conveyed words of advice.“We are quite disturbed with the manner in which the trial judge has addressed a letter to this court requesting some more time. It is not for the presiding officer to convey words of advice as to when this court should grant bail and should not grant bail. The last two paragraphs of the letter are something which we have not appreciated. Registry to call for an appropriate explanation from the presiding officer at the earliest,” SC said.The judge had written the letter dated Aug 11 addressed to the assistant registrar, Supreme Court, and prayed for some more time to complete the trial. Fixing the time for completion of the trial, SC in May had noted the case was proceeding at a snail’s pace and asked that the trial be expedited as the accused had been languishing in jail for the last five years.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Referring to a Calcutta HC order which had rejected the bail plea in March, saying all witnesses would be examined by the end of April, SC had said in its May order, “Although the HC was quite confident the remaining 12 witnesses would be examined by May 1, yet it seems not a single witness has been examined… We give one last chance to the state to proceed further with the recording of evidence of the remaining witnesses. We direct the trial court to see to it that the trial is completed within three months from today without fail.”