The judgment emphasizes the importance of the district judiciary's independence in considering bail applications and highlights the appropriateness of the Trial Judge's exercise of discretion to grant bail.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. By the impugned order dated 2 December 2022, a Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh cancelled the bail which was granted to the appellant. The High Court observed that the Trial Court had granted bail to the appellant without taking into account an earlier order of the High Court dated 21 July 2022 rejecting bail. The High Court observed that the mere fact that the charge-sheet had been filed could not be considered as a change in circumstances. The police was directed to arrest the appellant immediately. The High Court has also directed the Registrar General to issue a notice to show cause to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Harda to seek his explanation on the circumstances in which he had granted bail to the appellant.

3. The appellant and the complainant are closely related.

4. On 19 June 2022, FIR No 354 was registered against the appellant at Police Station Harda, District Harda. The FIR implicates alleged offences under Sections 294, 323, 342, 354 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

5. The allegation in the FIR is that on 19 June 2022 when the complainant was going to tend his cows and oxen, the appellant and other co-accused accosted him, tied him to a tree after stripped him and assaulted him.

6. The first application for bail was rejected by the Trial court. On 21 July 2022, the High Court declined to grant bail to the appellant. The application was dismissed as withdrawn while granting liberty to the appellant to file a fresh application for bail after the passage of reasonable time. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the competent court on 5 August 2022. The Trial court was moved for the grant of bail on 10 August 2022. On 16 August 2022, the Trial Judge, noting that a second regular bail application had been submitted by the appellant, granted bail on the ground that the charge-sheet had been submitted and the other accused have been granted bail. This order of the Trial court was questioned before the High Court and resulted in the impugned order.

7. While entertaining the Special Leave Petition, this Court, by its order dated 24 February 2023, issued notice and passed the following order:

"1 By the impugned order dated 2 December 2022, the Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has cancelled the bail which was granted by the trial court on 16 August 2022 to the petitioner. The charge-sheet in respect of alleged offences punishable under Sections

294, 323, 342, 354 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 has been filed on 5 August 2022. Though the application for bail was rejected earlier on 21 July 2022, the trial court granted bail noting that:

(i). The offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death; and

(ii). The other accused have been granted bail.

2. The High Court, while setting aside the order of the trial court, directed the issuance of a notice to the trial court seeking an explanation in regard to the order granting bail.

3. We are, prima facie, of the view that this is an eminently fit and proper case for the grant of bail even at this stage. Moreover, there was, prima facie, no justification for the High Court to call for an explanation from the trial judge for having granted bail. Such orders of the High Court seriously affect the independence of the district judiciary in considering applications for bail in appropriate cases.

4. We accordingly issue the following directions:

(i). The petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court in connection with FIR No 354/2022, registered at Police Station Harda, District Harda, Madhya Pradesh;

(ii). Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, in addition;

(iii). Notice on the de facto complainant shall be effected through the SHO of the police station concerned; and

(iv). The direction of the High Court calling for an explanation from the trial Judge shall r