“Appalled”: Supreme Court releases woman jailed by lower court for changing her lawyer six times

The Supreme Court recently ordered the release of a woman who had been sent to jail by a lower court because she had changed her lawyers several times during an appeal in a cheque bounce case [Meenakshi vs. State of Haryana & Anr.].

In an order passed on November 27, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said the action of the lower court in taking the woman into custody for changing her lawyer was “appalling and shocking,” especially since her appeal was still pending and her sentence had already been suspended.

It noted that the appellate Court thad done so merely because the woman had changed counsel six times.

The Court said the appellate judge had insisted on the woman’s personal appearance at every hearing instead of proceeding with the appeal on merits or appointing an Amicus Curiae. It observed that such an approach had no legal justification.

It then directed that she be released immediately on a self-bond of ₹1 lakh.

The case arose from cheque bounce proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant had filed a case after two cheques, one for ₹7 lakh and another for ₹5.02 lakh, issued by the woman’s mother were dishonoured. The trial court convicted and sentenced both the mother and the daughter, and the woman later filed an appeal before the sessions court in Faridabad.

The Supreme Court noted that though the appeal had been pending for over eight years, the appellate court chose to cancel her bail after observing that she had changed counsel more than six times. The Bench remarked that such conduct by the court was unacceptable.

The Court explained that if the lawyer was not assisting the court, the proper course would have been to appoint an Amicus Curiae or grant the accused time to make alternate arrangements, not to send her to jail.

The order stated that the appellate court’s insistence on the woman’s presence at every hearing despite her sentence being suspended, was indefensible.

"It is appalling and shocking to note that appellate court having insisted for appearance of the appellant on every date of hearing particularly in the backdrop of the suspension of sentence already passed. Prima facie the course open for the appellate court was to either appoint an amicus curiae and hear the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon or grant an opportunity to the concerned appellant-accused to make alternate arrangement if counsel was not assisting the Court," the Court noted.

The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that the woman’s mother, who was also an accused, had since passed away and that the death certificate had been placed before the appellate court. Yet, the lower court refused to accept it and instead directed the police to verify the certificate’s authenticity.

The record showed that the woman had also been unwell for which she had filed an exemption application that was allowed on August 22. The case was adjourned to September 4. But by the time she reached the court, the case had already been called and her bail cancelled. A non-bailable warrant was issued that very day.

She later surrendered and sought bail again on September 20, but the appellate court rejected her request and took her into custody.

After her plea for relief remained unheard by the Punjab and Haryana High Court due to repeated adjournments, she approached the top court.

The Supreme Court said the facts of the case raised serious questions about how bail orders should be handled when an accused’s appeal is pending and the sentence has been suspended. The Court sought details of the relevant procedural rules from the State so that guidelines could be framed to prevent similar incidents in the future.

It observed that the petitioner was a woman suffering from health problems and that she could not be left to languish in jail when her appeal was yet to be decided.

“The petitioner is a lady, suffering from medical ailments, supported by Doctor’s certificate, and as such we are of the considered view that she cannot be allowed to languish in jail, particularly, when her appeal is still pending adjudication and the sentence had already been suspended,” the Court said.

It directed her immediate release and ordered Faridabad jail authorities to act by 4 p.m. the same day and communicate compliance through both email and the local court.

The matter has been listed again after three weeks.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar along with advocates Dhruv Gautam, Dhruv Dewan, and Vansh Shrivastava.

The respondent was represented by advocate Akshay Amritanshu.

[Read Order]