One Bench Of High Court Cannot Cancel Bail Granted By Another Bench : Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Single Judge of the High Court in cancelling the bail granted to the accused by another Single Judge of the same High Court and that too, by examining the merits of the allegations tantamounts, to judicial impropriety/indiscipline.

"..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 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 Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed.

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure with the conduct of the Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court who cancelled the bail as already granted to the accused by another Single Judge of the same High Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the act of reviewing the orders granting bail to the accused by another Single Judge is uncalled for and amounts to gross impropriety.

"The learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned orders dated 12th December, 2023 has virtually reviewed the orders granting bail to the appellants dated 8th September, 2022 and 14th September, 2022 by another Single Judge of the same High Court. We feel that such exercise of jurisdiction tantamounted to gross impropriety.", the Supreme Court said.

The Supreme Court questioned 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, as "the application for cancellation of bail filed on merits as opposed to violation of the conditions of the bail order should have been placed before the same learned Single Judge who had granted bail to the accused.", the Supreme Court stated.

In the instant case, bail was granted to the accused by a Single Judge on 14.09.2022, however, an application seeking the cancellation of bail of the State was listed before another Single Judge which was consequently allowed and the bail granted to the accused stands cancelled.

While relying on the Supreme Court Judgment of Abdul Basit, the Single Judge of the High Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused by noting that the facts brought to the notice of this Court by the prosecution were such glaring that the Court found it a a suitable case for cancellation of bail. 

However, while referring to Abdul Basit, the Supreme Court noted that "the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. The bail could be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail, (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of the bail order; (c ) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud."

Disagreeing with the findings of the Single Judge, the Supreme Court observed that none of the aforementioned conditions existed to cancel the bail.

Section 362 Cr.P.C. Operates A Bar For High Court To Review Its Own Cases

Further, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court cannot review its own cases within the limited scope of Section 362 CrPC which operates as a bar for the High Court to review its own order. 

"It is an accepted principle of law that when a matter has been finally disposed of by a court, the court is, in the absence of a direct statutory provision, functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for relief in the matter unless and until the previous order of final disposal has been set aside or modified to that extent. It is also settled law that the judgment and order granting bail cannot be reviewed by the court passing such judgment and order in the absence of any express provision in the Code for the same. Section 362 of the Code operates as a bar to any alteration or review of the cases disposed of by the court. The singular exception to the said statutory bar is correction of clerical or arithmetical error by the court.”, the Supreme Court said in Abdul Basit.

Case Title : Himanshu Sharma v. Union of India

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 157

Click here to read the judgment