Supreme Court Restores Bail After High Court Cancellation Due to Advocate Adjournment: Purushothaman vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) INSC 970

Date of the Judgment: October 30, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 970

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a High Court cancel bail simply because a lawyer asks for more time? The Supreme Court recently addressed this crucial question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the principles of natural justice and the rights of the accused. The core issue was whether a High Court could cancel bail granted to an accused, merely because their lawyer sought an adjournment, without giving the accused a chance to present their side. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Subsequently, the High Court admitted his appeal against the conviction. On January 12, 2018, the High Court suspended his sentence and granted him bail.

However, on July 7, 2023, when the criminal appeal was listed for hearing, the appellant’s advocate requested a four-week adjournment. The High Court, solely on the grounds that the appellant was on bail and his advocate sought an adjournment, proceeded to cancel his bail.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the suspension of sentence pending appeal and the release of the appellant on bail. The provision states:

“389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail – (1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond. Provided that the Appellate Court shall, before releasing on bail or on his own bond a convicted person who is convicted of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, shall give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release: Provided further that in cases where a convicted person is released on bail it shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to file an application for the cancellation of the bail.”

The Court noted that the second proviso to Section 389(1) of the CrPC allows the Public Prosecutor to apply for cancellation of bail. It also stated that this is similar to Section 439(2) of the CrPC, which implies that the Court can also initiate suo motu action to cancel bail. However, the Court emphasized that bail cannot be cancelled without giving a reasonable opportunity to the accused to be heard.

Arguments

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in canceling the bail of the appellant solely because his advocate sought an adjournment. The appellant argued that canceling bail without a hearing was a violation of natural justice. The State did not present any counter arguments in the judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue was:

✓ Whether the High Court was justified in canceling the bail of the appellant solely because his advocate sought an adjournment, without providing the accused an opportunity to be heard.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

The Court also considered the following legal provision:

• Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the suspension of sentence pending appeal and the release of the appellant on bail. The Court emphasized that while this section allows for the cancellation of bail, it must be done after providing a reasonable opportunity to the accused to be heard.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Bani Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 720]: The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize that the High Court had alternative options besides canceling bail, such as appointing a lawyer to represent the accused when the original advocate seeks unreasonable adjournments.

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order and restored the bail granted to the appellant on January 12, 2018. The Court clarified that while the High Court can refuse unreasonable adjournment requests, it cannot penalize the accused by canceling their bail without a hearing. The court stated that the High Court could have appointed an advocate to represent the appellant instead of canceling the bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that the principles of natural justice were followed. The Court emphasized that an accused person cannot be penalized for the actions of their advocate, particularly when it comes to fundamental rights like bail. The Court’s reasoning focused on the need for a fair hearing and the availability of alternative options for the High Court.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered whether the High Court’s decision to cancel bail was fair, given that the accused was not given a chance to be heard. The Court rejected the interpretation that an advocate’s adjournment request was sufficient grounds for bail cancellation. The final decision was based on the principle that an accused should not be penalized for the actions of their advocate, and that a hearing is essential before bail can be cancelled.

The Supreme Court noted that “Under no circumstances, the bail granted to an accused under sub-section 1 of Section 389 can be cancelled without giving a reasonable opportunity to the accused of being heard.” The Court also stated, “For the default of the advocate appointed by the accused, the Appellate Court cannot penalize the accused by proceeding to cancel his bail only on the ground that his advocate has sought adjournment and that also without giving an opportunity of being heard to him on the issue of cancellation of bail.” The Court further clarified that, “When only the application for suspension of sentence is listed for hearing, the advocate for the accused is not expected to be ready to argue the appeal.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Bail cannot be canceled solely because an advocate seeks an adjournment.
• ✓ An accused person must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before their bail is canceled.
• ✓ Courts have alternative options, such as appointing a lawyer, when an advocate seeks unreasonable adjournments.
• ✓ This judgment reinforces the principles of natural justice and the rights of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that if the appellant applies for adjournment on any unreasonable or unwarranted ground, it will be open for the High Court to proceed with the appeal by taking recourse to one of the options laid down in the case of Bani Singh v. State of U.P.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that their advocate sought an adjournment. The Court has reiterated the principle that an accused person has the right to be heard before any adverse order is passed against them, especially concerning their liberty. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in the criminal justice system.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Purushothaman vs. State of Tamil Nadu emphasizes that bail cannot be canceled without giving the accused a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The High Court’s action of canceling bail solely based on an adjournment request by the advocate was deemed improper. The Supreme Court restored the appellant’s bail and clarified that while courts can refuse unreasonable adjournments, they cannot penalize the accused for the actions of their advocate without a hearing. This judgment upholds the principles of natural justice and the rights of the accused.