Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

39. In any event, if such a one in a million case does arise, the appellants can certainly approach this Court for relief under Article 136 of the Constitution.

40. While there can be no doubt that the jurisdiction of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be curtailed, yet extraordinary situations could arise where it would be advisable for a High Court to decline to interfere. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab17 this Court considered the “nagging question” whether an accused could approach the High Court for the grant of bail under Article 226 of the Constitution in a case arising out of an offence under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1985 and 1987 or the TADA Act. In that context, this Court took the view that given the special nature of the statute, if a High Court entertains a bail 17 (1994) 3 SCC 569 Crl. Appeal Nos.______/2017 etc. (@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9503/2016 etc.) application invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and passes orders, the very scheme and object of the TADA Act and the intendment of the Parliament would be completely defeated and frustrated. It was held that a High Court would interfere, if at all, only in extreme and rare cases and additionally, judicial discipline and comity of courts require that High Courts should refrain from exercising their jurisdiction in entertaining bail applications, more particularly since this Court could grant relief in an appropriate case under Article 136 of the Constitution. It was held:

18 (1994) 2 SCC 664 Crl. Appeal Nos.______/2017 etc. (@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9503/2016 etc.) in rare and appropriate cases in extreme circumstances. What those rare cases are and what would be the circumstances that would justify the entertaining of applications under Article 226 cannot be put in strait-jacket. However, we would like to emphasise and re-emphasise that the judicial discipline and comity of courts require that the High Courts should refrain from exercising their jurisdiction in entertaining bail applications in respect of an accused indicted under the special Act since this Court has jurisdiction to interfere and correct the orders of the High Courts under Article 136 of the Constitution.” This was reaffirmed subsequently in the decision in the following words:

“Though it cannot be said that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass orders either way, relating to the cases under the Act 1987, that power should be exercised sparingly, that too only in rare and appropriate cases in extreme circumstances. But the judicial discipline and comity of courts require that the High Courts should refrain from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in such matters.”