Supreme Court: Bail cannot be revoked only due to the accused’s absence in court

The Supreme Court recently made it clear that just because someone accused of a crime didn’t show up in court in person, their bail cannot be automatically canceled. This decision came in the case of Krishna Kumar Sharma from West Bengal.

The person seeking bail explained that he couldn’t make it to the Calcutta High Court because of a traffic jam caused by VIP movements. Also, his lawyer couldn’t be there because he had withdrawn from the case the day before.

The Supreme Court judges, BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, pointed out that canceling bail is a different matter and should only happen if the person violates the conditions or misuses the freedom given, like tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. They said that just not showing up in person is not a good enough reason to cancel bail.

In this case, the court noticed that the order to cancel bail didn’t have the usual reasons mentioned. So, they decided to overturn that order and reinstate the person’s bail.

The ruling emphasizes that there needs to be a proper reason, like breaking the rules, for canceling bail. The decision favored Krishna Kumar Sharma, accused of cheating and forgery.

Krishna Kumar Sharma’s legal team included advocates Ashok K Singh, Ankita Baluni, Vinita Singh, Anchal Bindal, and Aftab Ali Khan. On the other side, advocates Atarup Banerjee, Arindam Sen, Sunando Raha, Sampriti B, and Anupam Raina represented the complainant, while advocates Srisatya Mohanty, Lihzu Shiney Konyak, and Astha Sharma represented the West Bengal government.

In simple terms, the Supreme Court said that just not showing up in court doesn’t mean your bail should be canceled, and there should be valid reasons for doing so.