The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fundamental principles governing bail cancellations, emphasizing that mere non-appearance before the court cannot serve as grounds for revocation. 

The bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta addressed an appeal challenging the cancellation of bail previously granted to the appellant.

The case in question involved the cancellation of the appellant's bail due to their failure to personally appear on the specified date. Counsel representing the appellant explained that their absence was due to a traffic jam caused by VIP movements, further noting that the appellant's lawyer was also unable to attend as their Vakalatnama had been withdrawn earlier.

The bench underscored the distinction between the parameters for granting bail and those for canceling it, asserting that the appellant's non-appearance alone was insufficient justification for bail cancellation. The court clarified that bail may only be revoked if it is determined that the individual has violated bail conditions or misused their liberty by interfering with witnesses or tampering with evidence.

In light of these principles, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and nullified the impugned order, thereby reinstating the appellant's bail. This ruling serves as a significant reaffirmation of the principles guiding bail cancellations, ensuring that the revocation of bail is only warranted under specific circumstances where there is clear evidence of misconduct or non-compliance with bail conditions.

Case: Krishna Sharma v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 383/2024 @ SLP(Crl) No. 12829/2023

Click here to read/download order.