Delhi High Court Objects to Trial Court Granting Bail While Bail Plea Was Pending Before High Court

New Delhi:(Saahil@ Sahil Vs The State NCT of Delhi) The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over a trial court granting bail to an accused while a bail application was already pending consideration before the High Court, observing that such conduct is contrary to judicial propriety and institutional discipline.

The Court noted that entertaining parallel bail proceedings before subordinate courts, when the matter is seized by a higher forum, risks conflicting orders and undermines the hierarchical structure of the judicial system.

Background of the Case

In the case before the High Court, the accused had approached the Delhi High Court seeking bail. During the pendency of the bail application, the accused also pursued relief before the trial court, which proceeded to grant bail.

This prompted the prosecution to object before the High Court, arguing that the trial court should not have entertained or allowed the bail application when the matter was already pending before the High Court.

Observations of the Delhi High Court

The High Court observed that:

• Once a bail application is pending before a superior court, subordinate courts should exercise restraint.
• Grant of bail in such circumstances amounts to judicial impropriety.
• Parallel proceedings encourage forum shopping and may erode public confidence in the justice delivery system.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

• Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Power of Magistrates to grant bail in non-bailable offences.
• Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Special powers of the High Court and Court of Session regarding bail.

While the CrPC does not expressly bar simultaneous bail applications, courts have consistently emphasised the need for procedural discipline and avoidance of conflicting jurisdictional exercise.

Relevant Case Law

• State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) 3 SCC 223 – The Supreme Court held that judicial propriety requires subordinate courts to refrain from passing orders when a superior court is seized of the same matter.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 – The Court cautioned against abuse of process and forum shopping in bail matters.
• Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338 – Bail orders passed in disregard of judicial discipline are liable to interference by higher courts.

Legal Significance

The High Court’s observations reinforce the importance of judicial hierarchy, consistency, and discipline in criminal proceedings, particularly in bail matters where liberty and procedural fairness must be carefully balanced.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.