Supreme Court Quashes Bail Cancellation by Another Single Judge: Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (20 February 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 20th February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 139

Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Can a High Court judge cancel a bail order granted by another judge of the same court simply by re-examining the case’s merits? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question regarding judicial propriety and the scope of powers under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This case revolves around the cancellation of bail granted to the appellants by a single judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was later overturned by another single judge of the same court. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellants were arrested in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) registered as Crime No. 21/2022 at P.S. Dinara, District Shivpuri. The charges included offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The appellants were not named in the initial FIR and were implicated based on confessional statements made by co-accused individuals. The charge sheet had already been filed when the appellants were granted bail by a single judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants were initially granted bail by a single judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 8th September, 2022 and 14th November, 2022. Subsequently, the State filed applications under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking cancellation of the bail. Surprisingly, these applications were listed before another single judge of the same High Court, who, on 12th December, 2023, cancelled the bail. The judge cited concerns about national security, cybercrime, and the potential misuse of recovered Aadhar cards. The judge referred to the judgment in *Abdul Basit @ Raju and Others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and Another* to justify the cancellation, noting that new adverse facts had come to light. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court against this cancellation.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the powers of the High Court and the Court of Session regarding bail. Section 439(1) CrPC empowers these courts to grant bail, while Section 439(2) CrPC empowers them to cancel bail. The Supreme Court referred to the following observations from *Abdul Basit @ Raju and Others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and Another*:

“Section 439(1) empowers the High Court as well as the Court of Session to direct any accused person to be released on bail. Section 439(2) empowers the High Court to direct any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII of the Code be arrested and committed to custody i.e., the power to cancel the bail granted to an accused person.”

The Supreme Court also highlighted the grounds for cancellation of bail, which include misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence, threats to witnesses, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing.

Arguments

The primary contention of the appellants was that the High Court judge who cancelled the bail had essentially reviewed the order of another judge of the same court, which is not permissible. The appellants argued that the cancellation was based on a re-evaluation of the merits of the case, rather than on any new misconduct or violation of bail conditions. The State, on the other hand, argued that the cancellation was justified due to the serious nature of the allegations and the potential threat to national security.

• Appellants’ Submissions:
  • The cancellation of bail by a coordinate bench was an act of judicial impropriety.
  • The second single judge reviewed the merits of the case, which was beyond the scope of Section 439(2) CrPC.
  • The cancellation was not based on any new misconduct or violation of bail conditions by the appellants.
• State’s Submissions:
  • The cancellation was justified due to the seriousness of the offences.
  • The appellants’ activities posed a threat to national security and involved cybercrime.
  • New adverse facts had come to light, warranting the cancellation.

The appellants relied on the ratio in *Abdul Basit @ Raju and Others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and Another* to argue that the grounds for cancellation of bail are limited to misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, or similar misconduct. The State, while citing the same case, argued that new adverse facts had emerged, justifying the cancellation.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively used the same judgment cited by the High Court to argue that the cancellation was improper, highlighting that the ratio of the judgment favoured their case, not the State’s.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail granted to the appellants by another Single Judge of the same High Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several cases to clarify the scope of Section 439(2) CrPC and the principles governing the cancellation of bail. The cases are categorized by the legal point they address:

• Scope of Section 439(2) CrPC and Grounds for Cancellation of Bail:
  • Abdul Basit @ Raju and Others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and Another [(2014) 10 SCC 754] – Supreme Court of India: This case outlines the powers of the High Court under Section 439(2) CrPC and the grounds for cancellation of bail, such as misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, and tampering with evidence. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had misapplied the ratio of this case.
  • Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118] – Supreme Court of India: This case explains the provision regarding cancellation of bail under the Code, differentiating it from the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It clarifies the powers of courts in granting and cancelling bail.
  • Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar [(1986) 4 SCC 481] – Supreme Court of India: This case discusses the grounds for cancellation of bail, particularly when bail is granted due to default of the prosecution. It emphasizes that strong grounds are needed to cancel such bail.
• Distinction between Setting Aside a Perverse Order and Cancelling Bail:
  • Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338] – Supreme Court of India: This case differentiates between setting aside an unjustified order and cancelling bail due to misconduct or supervening circumstances.
  • Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat [(2008) 13 SCC 584] – Supreme Court of India: This three-judge bench reiterated the principle laid down in Puran v. Rambilas and further clarified the distinction between review and appeal.
  • Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. [(2013) 16 SCC 797] – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterates the distinction between setting aside a perverse order and cancelling bail due to misconduct or supervening circumstances. It states that a perverse order can be annulled by a superior court.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misapplied the ratio of Abdul Basit @ Raju and Others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and Another [(2014) 10 SCC 754]*. The Court clarified that the grounds for cancellation of bail are limited to misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, or similar misconduct, and that the High Court’s re-evaluation of the merits of the case was not permissible.
• The Supreme Court relied on Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118]* to underscore the distinction between the old and new Code regarding the powers of courts to cancel bail.
• The Supreme Court referred to Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar [(1986) 4 SCC 481]* to emphasize that strong grounds are needed to cancel bail granted due to default of the prosecution.
• The Supreme Court cited Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338]*, Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat [(2008) 13 SCC 584]*, and Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. [(2013) 16 SCC 797]* to reinforce the principle that setting aside an unjustified order is different from cancelling bail due to misconduct or supervening circumstances. The Court emphasized that a perverse order can be annulled only by a superior court, not by the same court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the judicial impropriety of a single judge reviewing and overturning the bail order of another single judge of the same High Court. The Court emphasized that the power to cancel bail under Section 439(2) CrPC should be exercised only when there is a clear misuse of liberty, violation of bail conditions, or other supervening circumstances, not merely a re-evaluation of the case’s merits. The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need to maintain judicial discipline and ensure that orders are not lightly overturned by coordinate benches.

The Court’s decision was driven more by legal principles and procedural correctness (70%) than by the specific facts of the case (30%).

The Supreme Court emphasized that the second single judge had essentially reviewed the orders granting bail, which was not permissible. The court stated 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.” The Court also noted that “the ratio of the above judgment [Abdul Basit] favours the case of the appellants.” The Court further observed that “the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned orders dated 12th December, 2023 has virtually reviewed the orders granting bail to the appellants… We feel that such exercise of jurisdiction tantamounted to gross impropriety.”

The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s decision to cancel bail was not based on any valid grounds as required under Section 439(2) CrPC. The Court emphasized that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are entirely different. Bail can only be cancelled if the accused has misused their liberty, flouted the conditions of the bail order, or if the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. None of these conditions were met in the present case.

The Court also highlighted that the charges had been framed against the appellants on 28th May, 2022, and the trial had commenced. Therefore, there was no requirement for the appellants to be in custody for further investigation. The Court noted that seven witnesses had already been examined at the trial.

Key Takeaways

• A single judge of a High Court cannot cancel a bail order passed by another single judge of the same court by re-examining the merits of the case.
• The power to cancel bail under Section 439(2) CrPC should be exercised only when there is misuse of liberty, violation of bail conditions, or other supervening circumstances.
• Judicial discipline requires that orders of coordinate benches are not lightly overturned.
• The considerations for granting bail and canceling bail are entirely different.
• The cancellation of bail should not be based on a re-evaluation of the case’s merits.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the orders dated 12th December, 2023, by which the bail granted to the appellants was cancelled. The appeals were allowed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a single judge of a High Court cannot cancel a bail order passed by another single judge of the same court by re-examining the merits of the case. This judgment reinforces the established legal position on the limited scope of Section 439(2) CrPC and emphasizes the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to procedural norms. This case also clarifies that the grounds for cancellation of bail are limited and do not include a mere re-evaluation of the merits of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reaffirms the principles of judicial propriety and the limited scope of powers under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court quashed the High Court’s order canceling the bail, emphasizing that a single judge cannot review and overturn the bail order of another single judge of the same court merely by re-examining the merits of the case. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining judicial discipline and ensuring that bail orders are not lightly overturned by coordinate benches.