Law Web

Wednesday, 8 July 2026

Supreme Court: The court can cancel the bail if the bail has been obtained by placing wrong facts before the court

The learned counsel appearing for the State

would vehemently submit that Babu Chatterjee

obtained bail by making false statement before the

Court that almost 25 witnesses are to be examined

whereas only 13 witnesses are to be examined. {Para 4}

5. If it is the case of the State that Babu

Chatterjee, the co-accused obtained bail by

suppressing the true facts before the High Court,

then the High Court should have considered the

application preferred by the State for

cancellation of bail of Babu Chatterjee.

6. We fail to understand why the High Court says

that a coordinate Bench cannot cancel the bail

granted to an co-accused. If the bail has been

obtained by placing wrong facts before the High

Court, the Court can always look into the matter

and pass an appropriate order.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No(s).9148-9149/2026

SURAJ MAHANANDA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

Date : 27-05-2026

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made

the following O R D E R

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether accused can file bail application before Session court after withdrawing it from High court?

Having carefully scrutinized the material available on record,

we are of the considered view that the High Court has passed the

impugned order, without application of its mind, by revoking the

bail granted to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge-3,

Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1847 of 2017, on the

ground that the application was not maintainable before the Trial Court as the appellant previously approached the High Court for bail and subsequently withdrew the bail application. It may be mentioned in this connection that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or law laid down by this Court that once an accused has withdrawn his bail application before the High Court, he cannot file a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court and that his subsequent bail application would lie before the High Court only. Thus, the impugned order of the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1221/2019

SHARAD Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Dated: 8TH AUGUST, 2019.

Print Page

Bombay HC: The court should release accused if he is not produced before court within 24 hours and there is violation of mandate U/s.35(5) of BNSS

Therefore, even by giving concession to the police as per their averment in paragraph-9 they left Akola at 10:00a.m. on 27.05.2025, from that point onwards, definitely, the Petitioner was in their custody. Therefore, it can be said that he was arrested from that point onwards. In that view of the matter, it was necessary for the police officers to have produced the Petitioner before 10:00a.m. on 28.05.2025 before the nearest Magistrate. That was not done. He was brought to Yerwada police station and was produced before the learned Magistrate, Pune on 28.05.2025 at 4:20p.m.; which was clearly beyond 24 hours. Thus, the period of 24 hours is exceeded. The Petitioner was not even produced before the nearest Magistrate as is mandated under the Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. This is the first gross violation committed by the investigating agency.

In this case, no such written reasons are brought to our notice. Therefore, the Police officer has not recorded any reasons for the Petitioner’s arrest, though, he had appeared before the police station and had given his statement. Thus, we find there is violation of mandate U/s.35(5) of BNSS, as well.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4283 OF 2025

Vicky @ Vikky Vilas Kamble Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &

SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 25 SEPTEMBER 2025

JUDGMENT : (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:41340-DB

Print Page