Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [February 20, 2024]
The case involved Himanshu Sharma, who was granted bail by a Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in connection with serious offences under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471) and the Arms Act. The bail was later cancelled by a different Single Judge of the same High Court, acting on an application by the State under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The appellant challenged this cancellation before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
Whether a bail order granted by one judge can be cancelled on merits by another judge of the same court.
What are the proper grounds and procedure for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC.
Arguments
Appellant: Argued that the cancellation of bail by a different judge, especially on merits, was improper and amounted to judicial impropriety. The appellant was not named in the original FIR and was implicated only through confessional statements of co-accused. The trial had already commenced, and there was no further need for custody.
Respondent (State): Sought cancellation of bail citing wider ramifications concerning national security and cybercrime, and argued that the bail was improperly granted.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court held that, as a matter of judicial discipline and propriety, an application for cancellation of bail on merits should ordinarily be placed before the same judge who granted the bail. Cancelling bail by a different judge, especially on merits, is “grossly illegal” and constitutes judicial impropriety.
The Court differentiated between cancellation of bail for violation of conditions or misuse of liberty (which may be considered by any judge) and cancellation on merits (which should be before the original judge).
The Court noted that none of the standard grounds for cancelling bail—such as misuse of liberty, violation of bail conditions, ignorance of statutory restrictions, or fraud—were present in this case.
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order cancelling the bail, restored the original bail order, and allowed the appeal.
The Court emphasized that judicial discipline requires respect for the orders of coordinate benches, and deviation from this principle undermines the credibility and consistency of the judicial process.
Significance
This judgment reinforces the principle that judicial impropriety must be avoided in bail matters, and that applications for cancellation of bail on merits should be heard by the judge who originally granted bail. The decision protects the rights of the accused and ensures procedural fairness in criminal proceedings.
Citation:
Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 INSC 139.
RELATED Blog
0 comments