Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Bail Cancellation Decision
Date: 20th February 2024
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to cancel the bail granted to Himanshu Sharma. The case, arising from SLP(Crl.) No(s). 786 of 2024 and SLP(Crl.) No(s). 2032 of 2024, involves the cancellation of bail orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 12th December 2023 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case Nos. 43154 of 2023 and 43149 of 2023.
Himanshu Sharma, the appellant, was arrested in connection with FIR Crime No. 21/2022 registered at P.S. Dinara District, Shivpuri, for offenses under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960, and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court at Gwalior had earlier granted bail to the appellants on orders dated 8th September 2022 and 14th November 2022. However, the State, under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed applications seeking the cancellation of regular bail granted to the appellants.
The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions from both parties, expressed a firm opinion that the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge in canceling the bail granted to the appellants and examining the merits of the allegations amounted to judicial impropriety and indiscipline.
The Court clarified that considerations for granting bail and canceling it are entirely different. Bail can only be canceled if the accused misuses the liberty, flouts bail conditions, the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions, or if it was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. In this case, none of these situations existed.
The Court further noted that the cancellation application should have ideally been placed before the same Single Judge who granted bail initially. The fact that it was listed before another Single Judge was considered gross impropriety.
The Supreme Court also observed that the learned Single Judge, while canceling bail, did not consider that charges had already been framed against the appellants, and the trial had commenced. As a result, the Court concluded that the impugned orders were grossly illegal and set them aside.
This decision establishes a clear distinction between granting bail and canceling it, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of legal principles in such matters.
