The Supreme Court has made strong observations against the Madhya Pradesh High Court for listing a bail cancellation application before a judge different from the one who had granted bail to the two persons accused in a cheating case.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta recently noted that under normal circumstances, applications for cancellation of a bail filed on merits rather than violation of bail terms have to be placed before the same single-judge Bench, which had granted bail to the accused.
It set aside the December 12 order given by the single-judge Bench of Justice Anand Pathak of the High Court’s Gwalior Bench, which cancelled the bail of the two accused, granted earlier by a single-judge Bench of the High Court.
The Apex Court observed that such an act amounted to gross illegality and impropriety.
As per the case, the accused were arrested and booked for offences under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing the person deceived to deliver), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 470 (forged document or electronic document)and 471 (using a forged document or electronic record as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and for offences under the Arms Act.
A single-judge Bench of the High Court had granted bail to them on September 8, 2022 and November 14, 2022. The bail order was challenged by the State and the case was listed before a different judge.
On December 12, Justice Pathak cancelled the bail, despite the fact that charges had been framed, the trial was underway, and there was no further police probe needed.
The accused then moved the top court of the country, which allowed their appeals and set aside the December 12 order of the High Court.
The accused were represented by Advocates Jaideep Malik and Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia appeared for the accused.
Advocates Abhimanyu Singh and Yashraj Singh Bundela appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh.