Recently, the Supreme Court examined an important question concerning the integrity of bail proceedings under the NDPS Act while hearing the plea of an accused who sought release on parity with a co-accused already on bail. The case brought into focus allegations that the co-accused had secured bail by presenting incorrect facts before the High Court, raising a larger issue about whether a coordinate bench could revisit and cancel such an order if it was obtained through misrepresentation.
The controversy began when an accused facing charges under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act approached the Apex Court after being denied regular bail by the High Court. The plea was founded on the principle of parity, as a similarly placed co-accused had already secured bail. The State argued that the co-accused had obtained that relief by presenting incorrect facts regarding the number of witnesses yet to be examined during the trial. Although the State sought cancellation of the co-accused's bail on this ground, the High Court declined to consider the request, taking the view that a coordinate bench could not cancel a bail order passed by another coordinate bench. It was in these circumstances that the matter reached the Top Court for consideration.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan noted that the petitioner had remained in judicial custody as an undertrial prisoner for more than 1 year and 10 months, while only one witness had been examined in the trial so far. The Court also took into account that the co-accused, who was stated to be similarly placed, had already been granted bail.
The State opposed the plea by contending that the co-accused had secured bail by making a false statement before the High Court that nearly 25 witnesses remained to be examined, whereas only 13 witnesses were actually left. The Apex Court observed that if the State's allegation was correct and the co-accused had obtained bail by suppressing the true facts, the High Court ought to have considered the application seeking cancellation of his bail.
The Bench expressed its disagreement with the view taken by the High Court that a coordinate bench could not cancel bail granted by another coordinate bench. The Court stated, "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."
The Court further observed that, irrespective of the State's allegation regarding the co-accused, the fact remained that the co-accused continued to be on bail. Considering this circumstance, along with the petitioner's prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial, the Court found it appropriate to grant relief to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the Trial Court deemed fit to impose, and further directed that the trial be proceeded with expeditiously.
Case Title: Suraj Mahananda Vs. State of West Bengal
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No.9148-9149/2026
Coram: Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon’ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan,
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Sadhana Sandhu, Adv. Sukesh Ghosh, Adv. Toslim Ali, Adv. Rajesh Kumar Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Kunal Mimani, Adv. Parag Chaturvedi
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :