LI Network
Published on: November 02, 2023 at 00:43 IST
In a recent ruling, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and clarified that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which restricts the modification of a judgment or final order, is not applicable to orders refusing bail.
The Court’s reasoning behind this decision is that such orders possess the characteristics of interlocutory orders. Consequently, any change in the circumstances under which bail was denied allows the accused to file a fresh bail application, and the prohibition under Section 362 does not come into play.
Furthermore, the Court stated that bail conditions can also be altered if a case justifies such variation.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, explained, “An order for refusal of bail, however, inherently carries certain characteristics of an interlocutory order in that certain variation or alteration in the context in which a bail plea is dismissed confers on the detained accused right to file a fresh application for bail on certain changed circumstances. Thus, an order rejecting the prayer for bail does not disempower the Court from considering such plea afresh if there is any alteration of the circumstances. Conditions of bail could also be varied if a case is made out for such variation based on that factor. Prohibition contemplated in Section 362 of the Code would not apply in such cases.”
In the case under consideration, the appellant and other accused individuals were charged with embezzling cash using ATM cards intended for bank account holders. The appellant faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act.
The High Court granted bail to the appellant on April 28, 2022. However, he failed to deposit a specified amount within three months of his release, a bail condition. Subsequently, he surrendered on July 24, 2023, and applied for bail again before the High Court on the grounds of parity. He cited a co-accused who had been released on bail by the High Court but also failed to make the required deposit.
However, the High Court, in its order, refused bail to the appellant, citing that granting bail would amount to a modification of the previous order and invoking Section 362 of the Code. This led to the appellant’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in response to the appeal, made it clear that the prohibition outlined in Section 362 of the Code does not apply to such cases.
Consequently, the Court found the impugned order unsustainable and referred the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision, taking into account these observations.
Case Title: RAMADHAR SAHU v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH., (Arising from SLP(Crl.) No(s).11130/2023)