The Supreme Court recently took exception to the Madhya Pradesh High Court listing a bail cancellation application before a judge different from the one who had granted the bail to two accused [Himanshu Sharma vs State of Madhya Pradesh].A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta on February 20 said that under normal circumstances, a plea for cancellation of bail has to be listed before the same judge who had granted bail.Hence, it took objection a single-judge of the High Court cancelling bail which was granted by another single-judge of the High Court.Such an act amounted to gross illegality and impropriety, the apex court said."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 learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned orders ... has virtually reviewed the orders granting bail ... We feel that such exercise of jurisdiction tantamounted to gross impropriety," the Supreme Court observed.It, therefore, set aside a December 12 order of single-judge Justice Anand Pathak of the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court cancelling the bail of the accused.The accused were arrested and booked for offences under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing the person deceived to deliver), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 470 (forged document or electronic document)and 471 (using a forged document or electronic record as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and for offences under the Arms Act.A single-judge of the High Court granted bail to them on September 8, 2022 and November 14, 2022.The State later preferred applications seeking cancellation of the bail.
The same came to be listed before a different judge, Justice Pathak.
Justice Pathak then cancelled the bail of the accused on December 12, 2023 despite the fact that charges had been framed and the trial was under way and there was no further police probe needed.The accused then moved the Supreme Court.The apex court deprecated the cancellation of bail and stated that the listing of the bail cancellation plea itself was 'surprising'."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 appellant 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/indiscipline," the Supreme Court opined.Under normal circumstances, applications for cancellation of bail filed on merits rather than violation of bail terms have to be placed before the same single-judge who had granted bail to the accused, the top court explained.The appeals were by accused were allowed the High Court orders cancelling the bail were set aside.
Advocates Jaideep Malik and Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia appeared for the accused.
Advocates Abhimanyu Singh and Yashraj Singh Bundela represented the State of Madhya Pradesh.
TAGS: Supreme Court High Court bail cancellation judicial impropriety legal proceedings Himanshu Sharma Madhya Pradesh
