The Supreme Court has ordered the immediate release of a woman who was taken into custody by a lower appellate court solely because she changed her legal counsel several times while her appeal was pending in a cheque dishonour matter.
The case, titled Meenakshi v. State of Haryana & Anr., was decided on November 27 by a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria.
The Supreme Court characterized the approach of the Faridabad Sessions Court as “appalling and shocking.”
It emphasized that a litigant cannot be punished for changing lawyers, particularly when the appeal is still pending, and the sentence stands suspended.
The Bench found no legal justification for canceling her bail and sending her to jail purely because she had changed counsel six times.
Lack of Legal Basis for Custodial Action
The appellate court had equated the multiple changes in counsel with non-cooperation and insisted on the appellant’s personal presence at every hearing.
Instead of adjudicating the appeal on the merits, the court resorted to punitive measures.
The Supreme Court noted that if counsel fails to assist the court, the proper judicial response is either to appoint an Amicus Curiae or grant the appellant a reasonable time to make alternate legal arrangements.
Punishing the litigant by withdrawing her liberty was described as contrary to law and basic principles of fairness.
Origin of the Case
The matter arose under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, relating to two dishonoured cheques of ₹7 lakh and ₹5.02 lakh respectively, issued by the appellant’s mother. Both the mother and daughter were convicted by the trial court.
The appeal has been pending for more than eight years. Despite this prolonged delay, the Sessions Court cancelled the appellant’s bail and issued a non-bailable warrant, focusing entirely on procedural aspects instead of addressing the merits of the appeal.
The situation was aggravated by the fact that the appellant’s mother, who was a co-accused, had passed away. Even after a death certificate was submitted, the appellate judge refused to accept it and instead directed the police to verify its authenticity.
Events Leading to Jail Custody
The court record shows that the appellant had filed a medical exemption application, which was accepted on August 22. The matter was adjourned to September 4.
However, by the time she reached court on that date, the matter had already been called. Her bail was cancelled, and a non-bailable warrant was issued immediately.
She later surrendered and applied for bail on September 20. The appellate court refused her request and directed that she be taken into custody.
All subsequent efforts before the Punjab and Haryana High Court went unheard due to repeated adjournments, compelling her to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court noted that when a sentence is suspended during appeal, the presumption is that the accused remains at liberty unless there is a legally valid reason to revoke bail.
Administrative issues, such as changing lawyers, cannot be treated as grounds for incarceration. Such an approach undermines the appellate process and risks transforming procedural inconvenience into a punitive mechanism.
The Court also took note of the appellant’s medical condition and remarked that a woman suffering from documented health issues cannot be forced to languish in jail while her appeal remains undecided.
Immediate Release and Further Directions
The Court ordered the appellant’s immediate release on a self-bond of ₹1 lakh, without requiring any surety.
Jail authorities in Faridabad were directed to comply by 4 p.m. on the same day and to communicate compliance to both the Supreme Court and the local court.
Given the systemic concerns raised by this case, the Bench also requested the State to provide relevant procedural rules so that guidelines may be framed to prevent judicial misuse of bail cancellation in pending appeals.
The matter has been listed again after three weeks.
Appearance of Counsel
- For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar, with Advocates Dhruv Gautam, Dhruv Dewan, and Vansh Shrivastava.
- For the respondent: Advocate Akshay Amritanshu.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
Meenakshi_vs__State_of_Haryana___Anr__
