The Supreme Court censured a Trial Court for issuing non-bailable warrants to the accused, despite the fact that they had been complying and appearing through advocates even when the charge-sheet had been submitted. The court stated in the light of the case of Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh  (2022) 1 SCC 676 the trial court's decision was against the directive. 

In Siddharth, the Court had noted that it was inappropriate and against the basic intent of Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code for some Trial Courts to insist on an accused person's detention as a pre-requisite formality before taking the charge-sheet on record.

It should be emphasised that the State's attorney did not contest the conclusion that the case did not warrant further inquiry. The trial court's decision to issue non-bailable warrants in these circumstances also contravened the directive in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.,  (2021) 10 SCC 773 the court stated at the outset. 

Concerned about the enormous number of people awaiting trial who are incarcerated, a bench made up of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundersh provided detailed recommendations to simplify the bail process in Satinder Kumar Antil. The court's ruling made it clear that the accused should not be detained in a robotic fashion.

These judgements were also ordered to be included in the State Judicial Academies' curricula last week, where judicial officers get training. 

The court's ruling read as follows:

"We fail to understand why despite these judgments having been circulated, some of the trial Courts are conducting and passing the orders in the teeth of these judgments. It is a matter of concern that these cases thus, keep on coming up to the apex Court unnecessarily."

The court further pointed out that it was incorrect for the High Court to have ordered the appellants to surrender notwithstanding the fact that they are elderly people in their 70s and the alleged offences carry a maximum sentence of seven years. The judge observed:

"We would normally expect that even in the District Courts, in the Covid period, arrangements would have been made for virtual hearing. It is not as if the virtual method of appearing before the Court has to be abandoned as this is an alternative method of appearance now which is to be followed by different Courts."

Accordingly, the impugned orders were set aside.

Case Title: Chandmal v. State of MP
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 359 /2023

Appearance of the advocates:-

For Petitioner(s) 
Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR
Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv.
Mr. Parikshit Ahuja, Adv.
Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv.
Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv.
Ms. Garima Verma, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) 
Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv.
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
Mr. Ankit Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Adv.