A Bench of Justices Vineet Saran and CT Ravikumar said that there was no reason for the petitioner to file a writ petition directly before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Magistrate.
“This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Magistrate granting bail to respondent nos. 2 to 5. Firstly, we see no reason why the petitioner should have filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Magistrate directly in this Court,” the Court noted.
The Court also noted that the Magistrate who had granted bail and the Additional District Judge who had refused to interfere with the Magistrate’s order, had been impleaded as respondents to the writ petition.
“Further, we also fail to understand why the judge granting bail has been impleaded by name as respondent no.6 and also the Additional District Judge, who has refused to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate has been impleaded by name as respondent no.7,” the Court said.
The Court deprecated the conduct of the petitioner and proceeded to dismiss the petition with costs of ₹5,000 to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund within four weeks.
Source: Barandbench
