The Bench wondered 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.
—
EARLIER this week, the Supreme Court held that an application seeking to cancel bail could not be listed before a judge other than the one who had granted the bail to the accused.
A Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta handed down a ruling to this effect while terming such an act gross impropriety.
The Bench was hearing a petition against an Order, dated December 12, 2023, of a single judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior whereby it had cancelled bail granted to two accused.
The two accused were arrested in connection with a first information report (FIR) registered at police station Dinara, district Shivpuri for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25/27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.
A single judge of the high court granted bail to both the accused through Orders passed on September 8, 2022 and November 14, 2022, respectively.
The state government filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking to cancel the regular bail granted to the accused.
The application seeking to cancel the bail was listed before yet another single judge which the Supreme Court Bench found to be “surprising”.
The new judge allowed the application seeking to cancel the bail on December 12, 2023, adverting to the merits of the case and observing that the independent role of the accused may vary but collectively their role appeared to be challenging and has wider ramifications in respect of national security and cybercrime; and that the Aadhar cards and some copies recovered from the accused could be used in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 offences, terrorism-related activities, cyber fraud, kidnapping, ransom and for offences of grievous denominations.
Disapproving of the Order, the Bench observed that the exercise of jurisdiction by the single judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in cancelling the bail granted to the appellants by another single judge of the same high court and that too, by examining the merits of the allegations was totally uncalled for and tantamount to judicial impropriety and indiscipline.
The Bench reiterated that the considerations for the grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different.
“Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the court is satisfied that after being released on bail, (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of the bail Order; (c ) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. In the present case, none of these situations existed,” the Bench said.
The Bench wondered 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.
“Under normal circumstances, the application for cancellation of bail filed on merits as opposed to a violation of the conditions of the bail Order should have been placed before the same learned single judge who had granted bail to the accused.
“The learned single judge, while passing the impugned Orders dated December 12, 2023 has virtually reviewed the Orders granting bail to the appellants dated September 8, 2022 and September 14, 2022 by another single judge of the same high court. We feel that such exercise of jurisdiction tantamounts to gross impropriety,” the Bench ruled.
The Bench also highlighted that while cancelling the bail, the single judge did not even consider the fact that charges had been framed against the appellants and the trial had commenced and thus there could not have been any requirement of the appellants for further investigation as observed by the single judge in his Order.
The Bench thus chose to quash the high court Order cancelling the bail granted to the appellants.
Click here to read the order.
