Summary of Recent judgment

Case: Ramadhar Sahu v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order / Judgment: 16th October, 2023

The Matter Heard by Bench: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi


In the present case the appellant is under pre-trial custody and has been accused of stealing money using ATM cards that were supposed to be issued to bank account holders. Allegations have been made for the commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 408, 201 and 120B of the IPC as well as Sections 66 and 66C of the Information Technology Act. Other people have been charged in connection with the same crime. The appellant had filed a bail application before the High Court and had volunteered to deposit a sum of Rs.65, 92,460/. Allowing the bail application, the High Court passed the order passed and granted bail on the condition that the appellant had to deposit Rs.10, 00,000/ before the Trial Court and Rs.55,92,460 /was to be deposited under protest within a period of three months from the date of his release. The appellant was released on bail on deposit of
Rs.10, 00,000/. The appellant failed to deposit the remaining amount and surrendered on 24.07.2023. The appellant filed a fresh application for bail seeking parity with the co-accused who was released on bail by the court.

The High Court rejected the application of the accused stating that if the bail application of the accused is allowed without compliance of the conditions specified in the earlier order of a Coordinate Bench that would constitute modification of the order and Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits such modification of a judgement or final order. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellant approached the Supreme Court.


The Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that β€œAn order for refusal of bail, however, inherently carries certain characteristics of an interlocutory order in that certain variation or alteration in the context in which a bail plea is dismissed confers on the detained accused right to file a fresh application for bail on certain changed circumstances. Thus, an order rejecting prayer for bail does not disempower the Court from considering such plea afresh if there is any alteration of the circumstances. Conditions of bail could also be varied if a case is made out for such variation based on that factor. Prohibition contemplated in Section 362 of the Code would not apply in such cases.”


The Supreme Court allowed the application of the appellant granting him bail as Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which prohibits modification of a judgment or final order, will not be applicable in an order for refusal of bail.