The Court was dealing with a plea to recall an order directing the police to arrest an accused after holding that his bail automatically stood cancelled on his failure to mark his appearance before the police.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a High Court cannot automatically revoke an accused person’s bail for violating bail conditions [Manish @ Virendra @ Saroj Rai vs The State of Madhya Pradesh].
Justice Vishal Dhagat emphasized that revoking bail affects an individual’s fundamental rights. Therefore, any order that restricts someone’s freedom must be issued only after providing them a fair opportunity to present their case, the Court held.
“Reasonable opportunity of hearing is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. If there is an automatic cancellation of bail order, then valuable right of natural justice is denied to accused. Since automatic cancellation of bail order is violative of fundamental rights of an accused person, therefore, such condition could not be made part of the bail order,” the Court said.
Justice Dhagat was reviewing an application to modify an order issued by another single judge of the Court in March 2022.
In that 2022 order, the coordinate Bench had directed the police to arrest an accused, ruling that his bail was automatically revoked due to his failure to comply with a bail condition requiring him to appear before the police, as stipulated by the High Court.
The accused had been granted bail by the High Court in November 2021, with conditions that he must deposit ₹10 lakhs with the trial court and report to the police on the 15th of every month. The order also stated that if he missed even one appearance, his bail would be automatically revoked.
When the accused missed his appearances in January and February 2022, he requested a modification of the bail conditions set in the 2021 order. In March 2022, the Court denied his request and ordered the police to arrest him. In response, the accused filed another application, asking the Court to reconsider its decision.
The accused explained that he resides in Banaras, Uttar Pradesh, and it takes him four days to travel to report to the police. The State opposed his request, arguing that the High Court has the authority to set conditions when granting bail.
The Court acknowledged that, generally, there is a rule against reviewing or altering a court order. However, it also noted that exceptions exist where the Court may reconsider its judgments or orders.
“Court is barred from reviewing or altering its own order under Section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 equivalent Section is 403 of B.N.S.S., 2023. Both sections are pari materia. While recalling a judgment Court has to apply its mind and has to look into the facts of the case, therefore, bar under Section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or new Section 403 of B.N.S.S., 2023 will be operative, but there are certain exceptions when Court can recall/relook into the judgment and violation of fundamental rights is one of the said exceptions,” the judgment said in this regard.
The Court decided to recall the bail cancellation in this case, determining that it violated the accused man’s fundamental rights. It also directed the Registry to restore and schedule his application seeking a modification of the bail conditions.
Advocate VVR Daniel represented the accused, while Government Advocate Akshay Namdeo represented the State.
