New Delhi — The Supreme Court of India sharply criticized a lower court in Haryana for jailing a woman who had changed her lawyers several times during an appeal in a cheque bounce case, calling the action “appalling and shocking” before directing her immediate release.
In an order issued on November 27, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said the appellate court in Faridabad had acted without legal justification when it cancelled the woman’s bail and ordered her taken into custody, even though her sentence had already been suspended and her appeal remained undecided after more than eight years.
The lower court’s principal concern appeared to be that the woman had changed her counsel six times, which it viewed as non-cooperation. The Supreme Court, however, said the judge should have either heard the appeal on its merits, granted the accused time to appoint a new lawyer, or appointed an amicus curiae to assist the court.
“The course open to the appellate court was to either appoint an amicus curiae and hear the appeal on merits or grant an opportunity to the appellant to make alternate arrangements,” the Bench wrote. “Instead, the court chose to insist on her appearance at every hearing despite the suspension of sentence. Such an approach is indefensible.”
A Cheque Bounce Case That Spiraled Into Punitive Measures
The case arose under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after two cheques issued by the woman’s mother — one for ₹7 lakh and another for ₹5.02 lakh — were dishonoured. Both mother and daughter were convicted by the trial court. The daughter then appealed to the sessions court.
By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the woman’s mother had passed away, and her death certificate had been placed on record. Yet, the appellate court refused to accept the certificate and directed the police to verify its authenticity, further delaying the proceedings.
The Bench noted that the woman had also been undergoing medical treatment. An exemption application citing illness had been allowed in August, but when she arrived for the next hearing after her recovery, the case had already been called and her bail was abruptly cancelled, with a non-bailable warrant issued the same day. She later surrendered and was taken into custody again in September.
Delays and Procedural Breakdowns
After her plea for relief went unheard in the Punjab and Haryana High Court due to repeated adjournments, the woman sought redress from the Supreme Court.
The Bench said the case raised broader concerns about how courts handle bail during pending appeals, particularly where the sentence has been suspended. It asked the State of Haryana to furnish relevant procedural rules so that guidelines could be considered to prevent such situations in the future.
Calling the petitioner “a lady suffering from medical ailments,” the Court said she could not be left “to languish in jail, particularly when her appeal is still pending and the sentence has already been suspended.”
The Court ordered her immediate release on a self-bond of ₹1 lakh and directed the Faridabad jail authorities to confirm compliance by 4 p.m. the same day. The matter will be taken up again in three weeks.
The woman was represented by Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar along with advocates Dhruv Gautam, Dhruv Dewan and Vansh Shrivastava.
The State was represented by Advocate Akshay Amritanshu.
