The Supreme Court has clarified that a coordinate bench of a High Court is empowered to cancel bail granted by another coordinate bench if it is found that the accused secured bail by suppressing or misrepresenting material facts before the court.

A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan made the observation while hearing the bail plea of Suraj Mahananda, who is facing charges under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The accused sought bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Babu Chatterjee, who had earlier been granted bail by a coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court.

During the proceedings, it was brought to the High Court's notice that Babu Chatterjee had allegedly obtained bail by presenting incorrect facts. While seeking bail, he had informed the court that around 25 prosecution witnesses remained to be examined, whereas in reality only 13 witnesses were left. Despite this allegation, the High Court declined to consider cancellation of Babu's bail, observing that a coordinate bench could not cancel bail granted by another coordinate bench.

Challenging the denial of his own bail, Suraj Mahananda approached the Supreme Court. The apex court questioned the High Court's reasoning and observed that there is no legal bar preventing a coordinate bench from examining whether bail was obtained through misrepresentation.

The Court observed:

“We fail to understand why the High Court says that a coordinate Bench cannot cancel the bail granted to a 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.”

However, the Supreme Court did not cancel the bail granted to Babu Chatterjee in the present proceedings.

Considering that Suraj Mahananda had already spent more than one year and ten months in custody and that only one witness had been examined during the trial, the Court granted him bail. The Bench also directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial at the earliest.

The ruling reinforces the principle that courts possess the authority to revisit bail orders where they have been secured through suppression of facts or misrepresentation, irrespective of whether the original order was passed by a coordinate bench.

Case: Suraj Mahananda v. State of West Bengal – SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9148-9149 of 2026

Representation:- 

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sukesh Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Toslim Ali, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR