Recently, the Supreme Court considered a special leave petition challenging the anticipatory bail granted by the Kerala High Court, which is facing multiple criminal cases. The issue before the Court was not just about the grant of bail but also the propriety of subsequent orders passed by the High Court permitting the accused to travel abroad and modifying bail conditions, even though the bail order itself was already under challenge before the Supreme Court.
Brief Facts:
The accused had been granted anticipatory bail by the Kerala High Court in a series of cases registered against her under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. While the complainant had already approached the Apex Court challenging this bail order, the accused filed an application before the High Court seeking permission to travel abroad to meet employment-related requirements.
The High Court modified the earlier bail condition, which had restricted foreign travel and allowed her to go abroad for two weeks, subject to conditions such as filing her itinerary, overseas address, and travel documents before the trial court. Later, the High Court also clarified that her passport should be released to make the travel permission meaningful. All this happened while the special leave petition against the very bail order was pending before the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, who had challenged the bail, argued that the High Court had acted improperly by passing orders altering bail conditions while its original order granting bail was already under challenge before the Supreme Court. This, it was contended, undermined judicial discipline and created a situation where the proceedings in the Supreme Court could be rendered meaningless.
Contentions of the Respondents:
On behalf of the accused, it was argued that the applications before the High Court were filed in good faith since she needed to travel abroad for her employment and immigration requirements. It was submitted that the High Court was apprised of the pending special leave petition and that the orders passed were only to facilitate her travel and were subject to conditions ensuring her presence during the trial.
Observations of the Court:
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s conduct. Referring to the law on judicial propriety and comity, the Court emphasised that once its notice had been issued in the special leave petition, the High Court should have exercised restraint in modifying the very order under challenge. The Court noted that “Where the order granting anticipatory bail by the High Court was impugned in the instant special leave petition and this Court was seized of the matter, an order modifying the conditions of anticipatory bail set out therein runs contrary to the principles of judicial propriety and comity. The proper administration of justice demands that when an order passed by the High Court is under challenge and notice has been issued by this Court, thereafter, if any application is filed for modification of the said order, the High Court must exercise restraint, as far as practicable, in passing any orders which can have the effect of circumventing, prejudicing, or rendering infructuous the proceedings pending before this Court.”
The Court also recorded its displeasure that the accused, in her counter affidavit, had not disclosed the fact that she was simultaneously pursuing modification applications before the High Court.
The decision of the Court:
The Court stayed all the orders passed by the Kerala High Court modifying bail conditions and releasing the passport of the accused. It directed the accused to surrender her passport immediately and restrained her from leaving India without the Court’s permission. Further, the Court issued notice to her to explain why, in light of concealment of facts, her anticipatory bail should not be cancelled altogether. The matter was posted for further hearing on 26 September 2025.
Case Title: Sreeja D. G. Nair & Ors. v. Anitha R. Nair & Anr.
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6677–6681 of 2025
Coram: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. V Chitmbaresh, AOR Jogy Scaria, Adv. C Govind Venugopal, Adv. E Krishna Perumal
Counsel for the Respondents: Sr. Adv. Ragenth Basant, AOR Bijo Mathew Joy, Adv. Hina Bhardwaj, Adv. Gifty Marium Joseph, AOR Harshad V. Hameed, Adv. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Anshul Saharan.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
