Automatic Cancellation Of Bail Order Without Hearing Accused Is Violative Of Natural Justice Principles, Fundamental Rights: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has addressed the legality of an automatic cancellation clause in bail orders. The case revolved around the applicant's plea to recall an earlier order that dismissed his request for modifying the terms of his bail.
The question before the court was whether a condition that mandates the automatic cancellation of bail without providing the accused an opportunity to be heard violates fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court, while recalling its previous order dated 14.03.2022, stated unequivocally that any condition leading to the automatic cancellation of bail without due process and opportunity of hearing infringes upon the fundamental right to personal liberty.
Justice Vishal Dhagat highlighted the significance of ensuring that all orders affecting personal liberty must conform to the principles of natural justice. The Court observed,
"Cancelling of bail order directly affects the freedom of a person which affects his fundamental rights. Any order which is passed affecting the freedom of a person must be passed after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Reasonable opportunity of hearing is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India."
The case initially stemmed from an application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for bail concerning multiple charges, including forgery and fraud. The bail was granted with stringent conditions, including a deposit of ₹10 lakhs before the trial court and mandatory monthly appearances at the local police station. The bail order explicitly stated that any failure to adhere to these conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of the bail.
The applicant's inability to appear before the police station on two occasions led to the automatic cancellation of his bail, as per the terms of the order. Following this, the applicant sought a modification of the bail conditions, citing difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the advanced age of his father. However, his application was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court, leading to his subsequent plea to recall the dismissal order.
In his submission, the applicant's counsel argued that the condition of automatic cancellation was "onerous and almost impossible to perform." The counsel contended that the court, while imposing conditions under Section 439(1)(a) of the CrPC, must adhere to the inherent test of proportionality, which was allegedly breached in this case. The counsel further asserted that since the applicant had fulfilled the financial condition by depositing the required amount, the court should have considered his application for modification more sympathetically.
On the other hand, the Government Advocate representing the State argued that the conditions imposed were neither onerous nor impossible, as the applicant had successfully complied with them previously. The State emphasized that the High Court has the authority to impose conditions while granting bail and that any failure to meet these conditions justifies the automatic cancellation of bail, as explicitly mentioned in the bail order.
Justice Dhagat expressed concern over the denial of a reasonable opportunity for the accused to present his case before the bail was cancelled. The Court reasoned that such a condition of automatic cancellation, which deprives the accused of natural justice, could not be sustained within the constitutional framework. The judgment stated
"If there is an automatic cancellation of bail order, then the valuable right of natural justice is denied to the accused. Since automatic cancellation of bail order is violative of fundamental rights of an accused person, such a condition could not be made part of the bail order."
Consequently, the High Court recalled its earlier order dismissing the modification plea and directed the Registry to list the matter for hearing on its merits.
Case title: Manish @ Virendra @ Saroj Rai Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: MCRC 4948/2022