The Supreme Court slammed the appellate court’s “shocking” move of cancelling bail and issuing an NBW against a woman despite her appeal pending for eight years. Citing serious procedural lapses and her medical condition, the Court ordered her immediate release on interim bail.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court gave interim bail to a woman who had been convicted in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Court strongly criticised the appellate court for cancelling her bail, issuing a non-bailable warrant (NBW), and sending her to jail even though her criminal appeal had been pending for more than eight years.
ALSO READ: Cheque Bounce Cases: New Supreme Court Guidelines
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria heard her petition challenging the actions of the appellate court as well as the High Court’s failure to protect her from being taken into custody.
The Supreme Court found that there were “serious procedural irregularities” in the way the appellate court handled the matter and emphasised that the petitioner, who is a woman with documented medical conditions, could not be kept behind bars while her appeal was still undecided.
The case started from a complaint filed by the second respondent about two cheques that were allegedly issued by the petitioner’s late mother.
The cheques were for Rs 7,00,000 and Rs 5,00,240. Both the petitioner and her mother were convicted, but the petitioner had already filed an appeal challenging this conviction. The Sessions Court had earlier suspended her sentence and granted her bail on 10 October 2017.
However, things changed when the petitioner switched lawyers several times. The appellate court cancelled her bail, issued an NBW, and ordered her arrest.
The Supreme Court clearly stated that although it did “not appreciate the repeated changes in counsel,” that did not give the appellate court the right to take such harsh steps.
The Court also found it troubling that the appellate court refused to accept the death certificate of the petitioner’s mother. Instead of accepting the certificate, the court directed the local Station House Officer to first verify it.
Another concern was that the petitioner, who was suffering from Herpes Zoster, had applied for exemption on 22 August 2025.
Her exemption request was allowed, and the matter was postponed to 4 September 2025. But when she came to court on 4 September, she found that her bail had been cancelled and an NBW had been issued against her.
The petitioner surrendered on 20 September 2025 and asked again for bail. But the appellate court neither decided her bail application nor gave her any protection—it simply took her into custody and postponed the hearing. On 23 September, her bail plea was rejected.
With no relief coming from the appellate court, she went to the High Court under Sections 528 BNSS/482 CrPC. But the High Court was unable to hear her matter due to lack of time, which meant she continued to stay in jail.
The Supreme Court expressed deep concern about how the appellate court insisted on the petitioner’s personal presence at every hearing even though her sentence had already been suspended.
The Bench said the appellate court should have appointed an amicus curiae or allowed her to make alternative arrangements instead of using coercive measures.
Calling the situation “appalling and shocking,” the Supreme Court asked the State’s standing counsel, Akshay Amritanshu, to place on record the rules that govern such procedures so that proper guidelines can be created to prevent such incidents in the future.
The Court issued notice to the complainant and also allowed the petitioner to serve the notice through dasti.
ALSO READ: Cheque Bounce Case: Delhi High Court Issues Practice Directions Speed Up Disposal
Considering her medical issues, the long delay in deciding her appeal, and the fact that her sentence had already been suspended, the Supreme Court held that she deserved interim bail.
It directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Faridabad, to release her immediately upon her signing a self-bond of Rs 1,00,000. The Supreme Court Registry was instructed to send the release order to jail authorities without delay and make sure it was complied with by 4 PM on November 27, 2025.
The case will now be heard again after three weeks.
Case Title:
Meenakshi v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 19050/2025
Read Order:
Read More Reports On Cheque Bounce Case
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
