New Delhi, Nov 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court today granted interim bail to a woman convicted in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, strongly criticising the appellate court for cancelling her bail, issuing a non-bailable warrant (NBW), and taking her into custody despite her appeal remaining pending for over eight years.
A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, hearing the woman’s plea challenging the actions of the appellate court and the High Court’s failure to grant relief, flagged serious procedural irregularities and held that a woman suffering from documented medical ailments could not be kept in jail while her appeal was still undecided.
The case stems from a complaint alleging dishonour of two cheques issued by the petitioner’s late mother, amounting to Rs 7,00,000 and Rs 5,00,240. Both the petitioner and her mother were convicted, and the petitioner’s appeal against the conviction has been pending before the Sessions Court.
Her sentence was suspended and bail granted on October 10, 2017.
However, after multiple changes in counsel, the appellate court cancelled her bail, issued an NBW, and ordered her arrest.
While the Supreme Court noted its disapproval of frequent changes in counsel, it held that such conduct did not justify the appellate court’s harsh approach.
The Bench also criticised the appellate court for refusing to accept the death certificate of the petitioner’s mother and directing verification by the local Station House Officer instead.
It recorded that the petitioner, who was suffering from Herpes Zoster, had been granted an exemption on August 22, 2025, with the matter adjourned to September 4, 2025.
But on the next date, she found that her bail had already been cancelled and an NBW issued.
After surrendering on September 20, 2025, the petitioner applied for bail, but the appellate court neither decided the application nor granted interim relief. Instead, it took her into custody and adjourned the matter to September 23 before ultimately rejecting her bail plea.
Aggrieved, she approached the High Court under Sections 528 BNSS and 482 CrPC. The High Court has been unable to list the matter due to a paucity of time, leaving her confined in custody.
The Supreme Court expressed “deep concern” over the appellate court’s insistence on the petitioner’s personal presence at every hearing despite her sentence being suspended.
It was observed that the proper course would have been to appoint an amicus curiae or allow her to make alternative arrangements, rather than resorting to coercive action.
Calling the situation “appalling and shocking,” the Bench asked the State’s standing counsel, Akshay Amritanshu, to place on record the governing rules to enable the framing of appropriate guidelines to prevent similar occurrences.
The Court also issued notice to the complainant and allowed the petitioner to serve notice through dasti.
Considering her medical condition, the long pendency of her appeal, and the prior suspension of sentence, the Supreme Court held her entitled to interim bail.
It directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Faridabad, to release her forthwith on executing a self-bond of Rs 1,00,000.
The Registry was instructed to immediately communicate the order to jail authorities and ensure compliance by 4 pm on November 29, 2025.
The matter will be listed again after three weeks.
