In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has recalled its previous order concerning the automatic cancellation of bail, citing it as a violation of fundamental rights. The decision came in the case of Manish @ Virendra @ Saroj Rai Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC No. 4948 of 2022), presided over by Justice Vishal Dhagat. The case raised crucial legal questions about the propriety and legality of conditions imposed on bail orders.
Background of the Case:
The applicant, Manish @ Virendra @ Saroj Rai, had previously been charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 475, and 417, in Crime No. 514/2019 at Police Station Kotwali, District Damoh. Following his arrest, the applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was granted by the High Court on November 26, 2021 (M.Cr.C. No. 54281/2021).
The bail was conditional, requiring the applicant to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs and mark his presence at the local police station on the 15th of every month. The order included a stipulation that failure to comply with these conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of bail.
However, due to reasons including the COVID-19 pandemic and the applicant’s elderly father, the applicant failed to appear at the police station on two occasions, leading to the automatic cancellation of his bail.
Legal Issues Involved:
The key legal question addressed by the court was whether the High Court can impose a condition of automatic cancellation of bail without offering the accused a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This issue is intertwined with the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Court’s Decision:
Judge Vishal Dhagat, after hearing the arguments from both sides, emphasized the importance of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. He observed that the condition of automatic cancellation of bail directly affects the personal liberty of an individual, a core component of Article 21.
The court noted that “Cancelling of bail order directly affects the freedom of a person which affects his fundamental rights. Any order which is passed affecting the freedom of a person must be passed after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing.” This observation formed the crux of the court’s decision to recall the earlier order dated March 14, 2022.
Also Read
The court held that the condition of automatic cancellation of bail was “onerous and almost impossible to perform,” particularly in the context of the pandemic and the applicant’s personal circumstances. The court ruled that such a condition violates the fundamental rights of the accused and thus cannot stand.
Representation
The applicant, Manish @ Virendra @ Saroj Rai, was represented by Advocate Shri V.V.R. Daniel, while the State was represented by Government Advocate Shri Akshay Namdeo.
