The Supreme Court disapproved remarks made by a West Bengal trial court judge who, while refusing bail to an accused, appeared to offer the Supreme Court advice on when bail should be granted. The Supreme Court found such remarks improper, reaffirming the hierarchical structure of the judiciary and the principle that subordinate courts must not overstep their role by presuming to guide higher courts on the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in bail matters.

This episode touches a fundamental principle of judicial hierarchy: subordinate courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts and must not offer unsolicited guidance or 'advice' upward in the judicial chain. The power to grant bail is a discretionary jurisdiction exercised under CrPC Section 437 (by magistrates), Section 439 (by Sessions Court and High Court), and Article 136/32/226 of the Constitution at the Supreme Court level. Under BNSS 2023 (which replaced CrPC), the corresponding provisions are Sections 480, 483, and 484.

The Supreme Court has consistently held—through cases like Dataram Singh v. State of UP (2018) and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012)—that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that courts must weigh personal liberty under Article 21 against the interests of investigation and public safety. When a trial court refuses bail with reasoning that simultaneously purports to instruct the Supreme Court, it conflates its limited jurisdiction with the apex court's plenary power. This is a breach of judicial propriety.

For CLAT PG aspirants, the key legal principle here is that bail jurisdiction is tiered: the scope of consideration widens as one moves up the hierarchy. A trial court's refusal does not bind the High Court or Supreme Court. Subordinate courts must apply the law, not define policy for superior courts. Remarks that attempt the latter are procedurally improper and judicially discouraged.