Application For Cancellation Of Bail On Merits Should Normally Be Placed Before Same Judge Who Granted Bail: SC
The Supreme Court observed that normally the application for cancellation of bail filed on merits should be placed before the same Single Judge who had granted bail.
The court set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that cancelled the bail granted by another Judge of the same court, calling such an exercise of jurisdiction tantamount to “gross impropriety.”
The Court also explained the difference between filing an application for violation of the conditions of a bail order from an application for cancellation of bail.
Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “We are of the firm opinion that the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge of 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 tantamounts to judicial impropriety/indiscipline.”
AOR Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia represented the appellant, while AOR Yashraj Singh Bundela appeared for the respondent.
The bail granted to the accused was cancelled by the High Court as the court found there to be “wider ramifications in respect of national security and cyber crime.”
The Court stated that the High Court did not consider the fact that charges had already been framed against the appellant and the trial had commenced and therefore, there was no requirement of the appellants for further investigation.
The Court observed, “We fail to understand how the application seeking cancellation of bail came to be listed before a Single Judge other than the learned Single Judge who had granted bail to the appellants.”
The Court held that the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to cancel the bail order was “grossly illegal” since an application for cancellation of bail should be placed before the same Judge who had granted bail to an accused.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Himanshu Sharma v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 139)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia and R. C. Kaushik; Advocates Jaideep Malik, Nitesh Dhankar, Sujeet Kumar, Shailendra Kumar Nirmal, Anurag Jain, Soni, Virendra Mohan, Neeraj Yadav, and Bano Deswal
Respondent: AOR Yashraj Singh Bundela; Advocates Abhimanyu Singh, Raghvendra Shukla, Pawan and Jyoti Verma
