New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to a woman who was taken into custody by an appellate court after she changed her lawyers multiple times during a cheque bounce appeal, holding that insisting on her personal appearance at every hearing despite the suspension of sentence was an unjustified course of action.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria examined whether an appellate court can cancel bail and issue non-bailable warrants merely because an accused repeatedly changed counsel, particularly when the sentence had already been suspended.
The Court was hearing Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 19050/2025 filed by Meenakshi challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order dated 14.11.2025, which had declined interim relief after the appellate court cancelled her bail.
The case arose from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning the dishonour of two cheques worth ₹7 lakh and ₹5,00,240 issued by the petitioner’s mother. The trial court convicted and sentenced them, following which an appeal was filed that has remained pending for more than eight years.
The petitioner had been granted bail on 10.10.2017. However, the appellate court later cancelled her bail and issued non-bailable warrants after she changed her counsel on more than six occasions.
Complicating matters further, the petitioner’s mother, Mary Parashar, had allegedly passed away. Although a death certificate was produced, the appellate court refused to accept it and directed the jurisdictional Station House Officer to verify its authenticity.
The petitioner filed an exemption application on 22.08.2025 citing medical reasons—she was suffering from Herpes Zoster. The exemption was allowed, and the matter was adjourned to 04.09.2025. However, by the time she reached the court that day, the matter had already been called, her bail was recalled, and a non-bailable warrant was issued.
On 20.09.2025, the petitioner surrendered and sought bail. Without passing any order on her request, the appellate court took her into custody, adjourned the matter to 23.09.2025, and subsequently rejected her bail application.
She then approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC in CRM-M-56737 of 2025, but the petition was repeatedly adjourned due to lack of time and the pendency of the appeal before the Sessions Judge.
The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the appellate court’s approach. Justice Aravind Kumar, writing for the Bench, remarked:
“It is appalling and shocking to note that the appellate court insisted on the appearance of the appellant on every date of hearing, particularly in the backdrop of the suspension of sentence already granted.”
The Bench outlined the correct approach:
“Prima facie, the course open to the appellate court was either to appoint an amicus curiae and hear the appeal on merits or grant the appellant an opportunity to make alternate arrangements if her counsel was not assisting the Court.”
While observing that the appeal had been pending for over eight years, the Bench clarified:
“However unjustifiable such delay may be, it cannot justify the course adopted by the appellate court.”
The Court also noted:
“This Court does not appreciate the conduct of the petitioner insofar as she changed her counsel more than six times; however, merely for this reason, the appellate court could not have issued non-bailable warrants by cancelling bail.”
On granting relief, the Bench stated:
“The petitioner is a woman suffering from medical ailments, supported by a doctor’s certificate. She cannot be allowed to languish in jail, particularly when her appeal is still pending and her sentence has already been suspended.”
The Court directed the Superintendent of the concerned jail to release her forthwith upon executing a self-bond of ₹1 lakh. The order was to be communicated electronically and complied with by 4:00 pm on 27.11.2025.
Significantly, the Bench asked the State’s standing counsel to apprise the Court of the existing rules governing such situations “to enable this Court to lay down guidelines to avoid any such incidents in the future.”
Notice was issued to the State and the private complainant (second respondent), with liberty to the petitioner to serve notice through dasti. The matter was listed for further hearing after three weeks.
Counsel Appearance:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dhruv Gautam (AOR)
- For the State: Mr. Akshay Amritanshu (AOR)
Case Title: Meenakshi vs. State of Haryana & Another
