Supreme Court Grants Bail To Accused Who Was Earlier Denied Bail By HC As Representing Counsel Did Not Appear Due To Bar Strike

Pertinently, the counsel for the accused (the petitioner herein) submitted before the Apex Court that on the Court date, the advocates had abstained from Court work on account of the strike called by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and that is why the petitioners were not represented in Court. Another ground to cancel the bail application was that the accused had threatened and harnessed the applicant and his family members thereby misusing the liberty granted by the Court.

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol thus made the interim order passed by the Court in favour of Ram Swaroop Patel (the present petitioner) on May 23, 2023 and in favour of Ram Het Patel on June 02, 2023 absolute.

However the bench clarified that “…the petitioners must maintain distance from the informant and their family members and if there is any complaint of intimidation by the petitioners, the trial court will be at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioners. Both petitioners are also expected to diligently participate before the trial court”.

AOR Konark Tyagi appeared for the petitioner and AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker appeared for the respondent-State.

In the present matter, the petitioners Ram Swaroop Patel and Ram Het Patel were arrayed as accused for offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 342, 307, 302, 506 and 34 of I.P.C. Both the petitioners were arrested by the Police on March 31, 2022. Thereafter, bail was granted by the High Court to Ram Swaroop Patel on September 12, 2022 and to Ram Het Patel on September 27, 2022. However, the High Court cancelled the bail where one of the ground for cancellation was that when the complainant filed the application for cancellation of bail, the counsel for the accused was not present in Court.

The complainant (also the applicant) before the High Court had alleged that the accused had been threatening and pressurizing the applicant as well as his family members to compromise the matter else he will face the dire consequences.

Therefore, a bench of Justice Nandita Dubey of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench while relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Myakala Dharmarajam and others Vs. State of Telangana and another (2020) 2 SCC 743 and Reghuveer Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481 cancelled the bail as the accused misused his liberty while acting in such a manner which was prejudicial to the case of prosecution.

The High Court had noted that through an order dated March 24, 2023 passed in In Reference (Suo Motu) vs. Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P. and others, all the Advocates were directed to attend the Court work forthwith, however the counsel for the respondent did not appear before the Court. “Despite writ of mandamus having been issued by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.7295/2023, and despite being authorized by the respondent No.2 vide Power of Attorney, the counsel for the respondent No.2 is absent. In view of aforesaid, issue notice to all the counsel for the respondent No.2 whose names are mentioned in the Vakalatnama, to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for disobeying the order dated 24.03.2023 passed in WP No.7295/2023 and to submit reply within two weeks”, the impugned order read.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Special Leave Petitions.

Cause Title: Ram Swaroop Patel v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.