"Trial court has no authority to question High Court order:" Bombay HC pulls up trial court for not releasing accused on bail despite HC order

Trial court has no authority to question an order passed by the High Court, the Bombay High Court recently observed pulling up a trial court in Maharashtra for refusing to release the applicant on bail despite express directions to that effect by the High Court (Gulfasha @ Alisha Mehraj Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra). .The applicant, Gulfasha Shaikh, had been granted bail by Justice Sarang Kotwal of Bombay High Court on June 18, 2021 after the Court noted that she had been in custody since November 2020 with her 10-month-old child..Despite this order, Justice Kotwal was approached by advocate Aniket Vagal for the applicant on June 28, 2021 seeking urgent hearing after the trial court refused to accept cash bail and was not releasing the applicant. He submitted that the trial court refused to release the applicant as the High Court failed to record Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code which was one of the charges against the applicant in its order. .Terming it a "serious breach of order", Justice Kotwal emphasised that the trial court was expected to follow the clear directions issued in the operative part of his order."There is absolutely no ambiguity in the operative part of the order and it was duty of the trial Court to follow the order. In spite of that, unnecessary hurdles are created in giving effect to that order," Justice Kotwal stated.He also clarified that if there had been any ambiguity in the order, it was either for the parties or the prosecution to point it out. "The order could have also been corrected by a higher forum. But the trial court had no authority to question that order. In any case, the operative part of the order is very clear and there was absolutely no ambiguity."Only to avoid creating any further hurdles, the High Court clarified its order by adding Section 302 in its previous order.The Court also asked the trial court to explain its stand through a report to be furnished to the Court within 10 days..Trial court had no authority to question High Court order. Bombay High Court.Other than murder, Shaikh was also charged with offences under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide), 307 (attempt to murder), 494 (marrying again during life-time of spouse), 498(A) (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 504 (intentional insult), 511 (attempt to commit offence) of the IPC.The informant in the case, who is the deceased had allegedly poured petrol on herself and visited the applicant's house with whom the informant's husband was allegedly having an extra marital affair. .Vagal submitted to the Court that the informant held serious grudge against the applicant and her intention to implicate the applicant in a false case was clear as she had carried the match stick with herself.The Court conceded that at this stage sufficient doubt had been created against the prosecution case, the investigation was over and chargesheet had been filed. In view of this, bail was granted. .The trial court's refusal to abide by the clear directions of the High Court "seriously affected the applicant's valuable right of getting bail at the earliest", Justice Kotwal noted. He expressed his concern that despite his order, the applicant had to suffer in jail for more period than was necessary, particularly when she has a 10-month-old child with her. "Considering the repeated concerns expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding unnecessary crowding of the jail, the attitude of the trial court is not proper in this case" Justice Kotwal said reprimanding the trial court. .[Read order]