Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Background
The appellants, accused in a criminal case involving forgery and cheating offences along with the Arms Act, were granted bail by a Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) in 2022. The appellants had not even been named in the original FIR and were implicated later, solely on the basis of confessional statements of co-accused. Later, a different Single Judge of the same High Court, acting on the State's application, cancelled their bail on merits (not for any bail-condition violation), even though charges had already been framed and the trial had commenced with several witnesses already examined.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that an application to cancel bail on merits should ordinarily be placed before the same judge who had granted it, and that a different Single Judge effectively reviewing and reversing another judge's bail order, without new grounds like breach of bail conditions, amounted to a serious impropriety. The Court also noted that the cancelling judge had ignored the fact that the trial had already progressed significantly, undermining any claim that further investigation required the accused to be back in custody. Finding the bail cancellation legally unsustainable, the Supreme Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the appeals, restoring the appellants' bail.
Lesson Learnt
Bail once granted should not be casually cancelled by a different judge of the same court without fresh, compelling grounds such as breach of bail conditions or misuse of liberty: merely disagreeing with the earlier order is not sufficient, and courts must also factor in how far a trial has already progressed.