Recently Supreme Court Criticizes Judicial Impropriety in Bail Cancellation Case. The controversy began when the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on December 12, 2023, revoked the bail granted to the accused appellants on September 8 and 14, 2022, by another bench.
On February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court of India, through a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, highlighted the issue of judicial impropriety and indiscipline concerning the cancellation of bail previously granted by a High Court judge. The apex court addressed the matter while dealing with the bail cancellation of accused appellants Himanshu Sharma and another, in a decision that has reinforced the principles governing the cancellation of bail in the Indian judicial system.
Also read- Supreme Court Imposes Rs.1 Lac Costs On Frivolous Petitions: A Message To Lawyers (lawchakra.in)
The controversy began when the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on December 12, 2023, revoked the bail granted to the accused appellants on September 8 and 14, 2022, by another bench. This cancellation was based on an application filed by the state, challenging the bail on various grounds, including national security and cybercrime implications. The appellants were implicated under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act, with charges including forgery, fraud, and possession of unauthorized arms, following their arrest in Shivpuri based on disclosures by co-accused.
The individuals were arrested in relation to a First Information Report (FIR) registered in Shivpuri under various sections (Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470 and 471 of the IPC and Section 25/27) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act. They were granted bail by the High Court despite the filing of charge sheets, based on statements made by co-accused.
The Supreme Court criticized the process through which the bail cancellation was handled, emphasizing that the application for bail cancellation was inappropriately listed before a single judge of the Gwalior Bench, different from the one who initially granted the bail. The bench pointed out that examining the merits of the case for bail cancellation by a different judge amounted to a virtual review, which constitutes judicial impropriety.
“We fail to understand how the application seeking cancellation of bail came to be listed before a single judge other than the single judge who had granted bail to the appellants,”
the Supreme Court bench remarked, underscoring the procedural anomaly in the case handling.
Also read- Disabled Woman Files Lawsuit Over Requests To Walk And Stand At Kolkata Airport (lawchakra.in)
The High Court had justified the bail cancellation by highlighting the severe implications of the accused’s alleged activities, including potential uses of recovered Aadhar cards in crimes such as terrorism, cyber frauds, and kidnapping. However, the Supreme Court found this approach to bail cancellation to be “grossly illegal” and not standing up to scrutiny, especially since the considerations for the grant and cancellation of bail are distinct and well-established through numerous judgments.
The apex court clarified that bail cancellation is warranted only under specific circumstances, such as misuse of liberty by the accused, violation of bail conditions, ignorance of statutory bail restrictions, or procurement of bail through misrepresentation or fraud. It further noted that applications for bail cancellation based on merits, as opposed to violations of bail conditions, should ordinarily be placed before the same judge who granted the bail.
In concluding their judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, also noting that the High Court had overlooked the commencement of the trial against the appellants, which had already seen the examination of seven witnesses. This oversight further contributed to the Supreme Court’s decision to quash the bail cancellation order, reinstating the principle that the judicial process should be consistent and free from impropriety.
This ruling not only reinstates the accused appellants’ bail but also sets a precedent for the handling of bail and its cancellation, emphasizing the importance of procedural propriety and discipline within the judicial system.
Case title- HIMANSHU SHARMA vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Also read- Supreme Court Deems Rs 19-20k Pension For Retired District Judges Inadequate (lawchakra.in)
READ ORDER
