LI Network
Published on: 30 January, 2024 at 09:00 IST
In a recent development, the Supreme Court emphasized that the mere non-appearance of the accused before the Court is not sufficient grounds for the cancellation of bail.
The three-judge Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, addressed a criminal appeal arising from the Calcutta High Court’s order canceling bail.
The High Court had canceled the bail, citing the accused’s failure to appear personally despite multiple directives. The court observed that the non-appearance indicated an attempt to evade legal proceedings. In response, the matter reached the Supreme Court.
During the proceedings, the appellant’s counsel explained the reasons for the non-appearance, citing a traffic jam caused by VIP movements that prevented the appellant from attending the court. Additionally, the counsel mentioned that the appellant’s lawyer was absent because his Vakalatnama (authorization to represent) was withdrawn.
After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court underscored that the cancellation of bail is warranted only if conditions are violated or if the granted liberty is misused.
The court stated, “…we find that merely because the appellant did not appear personally could not have been a ground for cancellation of bail. The parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are totally different. The bail already granted may be cancelled, if it is found that the person who has been granted the benefit of bail has violated any of the conditions or misused the liberty by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence.”
The Supreme Court pointed out that the impugned judgment lacked specific reasons related to these grounds, leading the court to set it aside.
This ruling reaffirms the principle that the cancellation of bail should be based on concrete violations or misuse of granted liberty rather than mere non-appearance.