The Supreme Court of India set aside a Calcutta High Court order cancelling eight-year-old bail, calling it a perverse and illegal use of revisional powers. It said High Courts must act as guardians and avoid disparaging remarks against judicial officers.
The Supreme Court set-aside a Calcutta High Court order that had cancelled bail granted to an accused almost eight years earlier. The apex court described the High Court’s action as a remarkably perverse and audaciously illegal use of revisional powers.
The bench also criticised the High Court for issuing disparaging remarks about the Magistrate and for directing administrative steps against the officer including adverse observations to be recorded in the officer’s Annual Confidential Report.
Terming these remarks “wholly misplaced and uncalled for,” the Supreme Court expunged all such adverse directions aimed at the judicial officer.
The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal against the High Court’s order dated March 6, 2026.
The Court remarked,
“The High Court, being a Court of record in the State, is expected to act as the guardian of the officers in the district judiciary. While finding infirmities in the order passed by a judicial officer, the immediate reaction ought not to be to make adverse or disparaging observations against the concerned judicial officer in a judicial dispensation,”
That order had interfered with and ultimately set aside the Magistrate’s decision granting bail in a matter triable by a magistrate, which arose out of a tenancy dispute.
While issuing notice and granting leave, the Supreme Court sharply faulted the High Court for disturbing a bail decision after an extended delay and for citing what it called “absolutely hyper-technical and untenable reasons.”
The controversy began with a tenancy claim involving part of a building purchased by the accused. In 2016, the complainant had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of tenancy rights, but she withdrew it in 2017 after stating on oath that the issue had been amicably settled.
Despite this, she later lodged a criminal complaint, leading to an FIR being registered in December 2017 under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including those relating to cheating and criminal breach of trust.
The accused was arrested in May 2018, but interim bail was granted within days and was subsequently confirmed by the Magistrate. The complainant then approached the High Court by filing a revision petition, which resulted in the 2026 order cancelling the bail.
The High Court based its decision on alleged procedural flaws, such as an improper authentication of the bail order and insufficient opportunity of hearing to the complainant.
The Supreme Court rejected these grounds, holding that the High Court had misdirected itself by overlooking key facts particularly the earlier civil settlement between the parties.
The bench noted that the FIR appeared highly belated and that the dispute carried clear civil overtones, making it a situation where denial of bail was not justified. The Court highlighted that once bail has been granted, it cannot be cancelled in a routine or mechanical manner unless cogent and overwhelming circumstances exist.
It reiterated settled principles that cancellation of bail is not the same as rejection of bail, and generally requires justification such as interference with the investigation, evasion of justice, or misuse of liberty.
The bench added that none of those conditions were met, and the High Court did not point to any supervening circumstances that could justify cancellation of bail after such a long lapse of time.
The Supreme Court also strongly disapproved of the High Court’s reliance on procedural shortcomings under Rule 183 of the Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985.
It held that administrative rules governing court functioning cannot override the substantive provisions of criminal law unless there is a clear miscarriage of justice.
The Court observed,
“It is absolutely unacceptable that the final order granting bail could have been set at naught merely on perceived infirmities in an interim order,”
ALSO READ: Eye-Opener for All High Courts: Supreme Court Slams 23-Year Delay in Dowry Death Trial
The bench further expressed concern about a growing tendency of High Courts to pass strictures against the subordinate judiciary through observations in judicial orders. It warned that such comments can demoralise judicial officers and may harm their professional prospects.
Adding that issues relating to judicial conduct should be addressed through appropriate internal administrative processes rather than scathing judicial remarks, the bench said,
“The High Court is expected to act as a guardian of the district judiciary. Supervisory jurisdiction should not become a tool of oppression,”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s order in full, and restored the bail granted to the accused.
Case Title: Shuvendu Saha v. State of West Bengal