The Supreme Court held that a coordinate bench of a High Court may revoke bail granted by another coordinate bench if it is shown that the accused secured bail by concealing or misrepresenting material facts. The ruling came in a case involving offences under the NDPS Act.
The Supreme Court has clarified that a coordinate bench of a High Court can revoke bail granted by another coordinate bench, provided it is established that the accused obtained bail by concealing or misrepresenting material facts before the court.
A Bench made up of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan made these observations while hearing the bail application of Suraj Mahananda, who faces accusations under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Mahananda had requested bail on the basis of parity, citing the case of co-accused Babu Chatterjee, who had previously been granted bail by a coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court. During the proceedings, it was brought to the High Court’s attention that Chatterjee allegedly secured bail by giving incorrect information.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand HC Slams Magistrate Ignoring SC Bail Guidelines: “Unfortunate & Unwarranted”
It was alleged that while moving for bail, he represented to the court that approximately 25 prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined; however, according to the allegation, only 13 witnesses remained at that stage. Despite this, the High Court declined to entertain a plea to cancel Chatterjee’s bail, holding that one coordinate bench could not cancel the bail granted by another coordinate bench.
Challenging the denial of his own bail, Mahananda approached the Supreme Court. The apex court questioned the High Court’s approach and noted that there is no legal restriction preventing a coordinate bench from examining whether bail had been obtained through misrepresentation.
The Court observed:
“We fail to understand why the High Court says that a coordinate Bench cannot cancel the bail granted to a co-accused. If the bail has been obtained by placing wrong facts before the High Court, the Court can always look into the matter and pass an appropriate order.”
Also Read: Supreme Court: Judges Must Be Humble, Polite & Humane in Conduct
That said, the Supreme Court did not cancel the bail granted to Babu Chatterjee in the case at hand.
Instead, considering that Suraj Mahananda had already been in custody for more than one year and ten months, and that only one witness had been examined so far in the trial, the Court granted him bail. The Bench also directed the trial court to speed up the proceedings and complete the trial at the earliest.
The decision underlines that courts retain the power to revisit bail orders where bail was obtained through suppression of facts or misrepresentation, regardless of whether the earlier bail order was passed by a coordinate bench.
Case Title: Suraj Mahananda v. State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9148-9149 of 2026
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE