Introduction
In a significant ruling highlighting the importance of fairness in criminal appeals, the Supreme Court of India has strongly criticized a lower appellate court for cancelling the bail of a woman solely because she changed her counsel multiple times. The Court termed the action “appalling and shocking,” emphasizing that denying personal liberty on such grounds has no legal basis. The case, Meenakshi vs. State of Haryana & Anr., arises from cheque bounce proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
On November 27, 2025, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria ordered the woman’s immediate release on a self-bond of ₹1 lakh, observing that her appeal was pending for over eight years and her sentence had already been suspended.
Background: Cheque Bounce Appeal Pending for 8 Years
The matter originated from two dishonoured cheques—one for ₹7 lakh and another for ₹5.02 lakh—issued by the petitioner’s late mother. The trial court convicted the mother-daughter duo under the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the appeal before the Sessions Court in Faridabad, the woman changed her lawyers several times.
Despite the fact that the sentence had been suspended pending appeal, the appellate court took an unusually harsh view and insisted on her personal appearance on every date of hearing. When she failed to appear once, despite an earlier exemption being granted, the court cancelled her bail and issued a non-bailable warrant.
Supreme Court: Counsel Changes Are NOT Grounds to Jail an Accused
The Supreme Court categorically held that repeatedly changing counsel cannot be treated as non-cooperation or defiance warranting cancellation of bail. The Bench noted:
“It is appalling and shocking to note that the appellate court insisted on the appearance of the appellant on every date, particularly when the sentence had already been suspended.”
The Court emphasized the correct legal approach:
- If the counsel was unprepared or not assisting the court, an Amicus Curiae should have been appointed.
- The court could have granted the accused time to engage another lawyer.
- Sending the accused to jail was entirely unwarranted.
This observation reinforces judicial responsibility to ensure access to justice rather than creating hurdles that compromise liberty.
Court Criticizes Handling of Mother’s Death Certificate
Another significant aspect was the lower court’s refusal to accept the death certificate of the co-accused—the petitioner’s mother. Despite the certificate being produced, the court ordered police verification instead of accepting it and proceeding with the matter.
The Supreme Court viewed this as an unnecessary roadblock, contributing to the prolonged pendency of the appeal.
Timeline: How the Woman Ended Up in Jail
A brief timeline summarises the procedural unfairness identified by the Supreme Court:
1. Appeal Pending for 8 Years
The cheque bounce appeal remained undecided for nearly a decade.
2. Exemption Granted for Illness
On August 22, the woman filed a medical exemption citing health issues, which the court accepted.
3. Next Hearing on September 4
However, on September 4, the matter was called early. By the time the woman reached the court, her bail was already cancelled.
4. Non-Bailable Warrant Issued
A warrant was issued the same day, despite no deliberate attempt to avoid proceedings.
5. Bail Rejected Despite Surrender
She surrendered voluntarily on September 20, but the appellate court refused to restore her bail.
6. High Court Delays
Her plea before the Punjab and Haryana High Court suffered repeated adjournments, leaving her in custody for months.
7. Supreme Court Intervention
Finding no relief, she approached the Supreme Court, which acted swiftly to protect her liberty.
Why the Supreme Court’s Judgment Matters
1. Reinforces Liberty Under Article 21
The ruling reiterates that personal liberty cannot be curtailed for procedural irregularities, especially when the sentence is already suspended.
2. Sets Expectations for Appellate Courts
The Court has directed the State of Haryana to produce procedural rules so that guidelines can be framed for handling bail in pending appeals.
This signals possible future judicial reforms in handling suspended sentences during appeals.
3. Prevents Misuse of Judicial Discretion
By calling the order “shocking,” the Supreme Court has clarified that:
- Bail cannot be cancelled mechanically.
- Absence due to illness or procedural confusion must be treated humanely.
- Changing a lawyer—even multiple times—is a right, not misconduct.
Court Recognizes the Petitioner’s Health and Vulnerability
Noting her medical difficulties, the Bench stated:
“The petitioner is a lady suffering from medical ailments… she cannot be allowed to languish in jail, particularly when her appeal is still pending.”
This compassionate approach is consistent with established jurisprudence safeguarding the rights of women and vulnerable individuals.
Immediate Release Ordered by 4 PM
The Supreme Court directed the Faridabad jail authorities to release the petitioner by 4 p.m. the same day, with mandatory compliance to be communicated to both the apex court and the local court.
The matter has been listed again after three weeks, likely to review procedural improvements and ensure accountability.
Representation
- For the Petitioner:
Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar, Advocates Dhruv Gautam, Dhruv Dewan, and Vansh Shrivastava - For the Respondent:
Advocate Akshay Amritanshu
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s intervention in Meenakshi v. State of Haryana is a crucial reminder that judicial discretion must always align with constitutional safeguards. Jailing an accused for merely changing lawyers is a grave miscarriage of justice, and the apex court’s strong reaction underscores the need for sensitivity, fairness, and adherence to due process.
With the Court seeking procedural details from the State to frame guidelines, this case may pave the way for more structured safeguards against arbitrary cancellations of bail in pending criminal appeals.
Also Read
