Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused

Once Default Bail Is Granted, It Cannot Be Revoked Arbitrarily—Cancellation Must Be Based on Strong Legal Grounds - In a significant ruling the Calcutta High Court set aside the order of the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, which had revoked the statutory bail of Sujoy @ Sujan Mondal and others in a case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The Court held that statutory bail, once granted, cannot be cancelled arbitrarily unless the prosecution demonstrates valid legal grounds such as misuse of bail, non-cooperation with the investigation, or fresh charges requiring separate consideration.
Criticizing the trial court’s approach, the High Court observed, "When the prosecution does not seek cancellation of bail and there is no evidence of the accused violating bail conditions, courts cannot revoke statutory bail at their discretion. Bail granted as a legal right cannot be nullified without compelling reasons."
"Murder Investigation Leads to NIA Takeover—Did the Accused Obtain Bail Improperly?"
The case originated from Moyna Police Station Case No. 128 of 2023, registered on May 2, 2023, following the murder of Bijoy Bhunia. The High Court had earlier ordered a second post-mortem at Command Hospital, Kolkata, raising concerns about procedural lapses in the initial investigation.
The accused, Milan Bhowmik (Appellant No. 3), Sujoy Mondal, Nandan Mondal, and Subrata Mondal (Appellants 1, 2 & 4), were arrested between May 4 and May 6, 2023. A charge sheet was submitted on August 4, 2023, but only after the trial court had already granted them statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
On April 5, 2024, the Calcutta High Court directed the NIA to take over the case, citing suspicious circumstances surrounding the delayed filing of the charge sheet, which was submitted just after bail was granted. On August 21, 2024, the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta (acting as the NIA Court) revoked their bail and took them into custody.
The accused challenged the cancellation, arguing that their default bail was legally obtained and could not be arbitrarily revoked simply because the case was later transferred to the NIA.
"Does Late Filing of the Charge Sheet Affect the Right to Default Bail?"
The trial court justified its decision by suggesting that the accused had secured statutory bail under "suspicious circumstances" since the charge sheet was filed just after court hours on the last day of the statutory period. However, the High Court rejected this reasoning, ruling:
"The statutory period for default bail expires with the end of court hours on the 90th day. A charge sheet filed after court hours cannot be used to question the legality of bail already granted."
The Court further clarified, "Once default bail is granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., it becomes an absolute right and cannot be taken away unless there is subsequent misconduct or fresh charges warranting separate consideration."
"Addition of Graver Charges Does Not Automatically Justify Bail Cancellation"
The NIA argued that after taking over the case, it added charges under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, which warranted reconsideration of bail. However, the High Court found that the trial court never cited these new charges as the basis for revoking bail.
The Court noted, "Had the trial court cancelled bail because of the graver charges, the matter would have been different. However, the order focused on questioning the original grant of bail rather than assessing the impact of the fresh charges."
Referring to Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 17 SCC 326, the Court reiterated that: "Default bail cannot be cancelled merely because a charge sheet is later filed. If new, graver offenses are added, the prosecution must seek bail cancellation on those specific grounds and not use default bail as a pretext for re-arrest."
"No Allegations of Bail Misuse—No Justification for Cancellation"
The Court also examined whether the accused had misused their bail, tampered with evidence, or failed to cooperate with the investigation. Finding no such allegations, the Court ruled: "Bail can only be cancelled if there is material evidence showing that the accused are intimidating witnesses, destroying evidence, or obstructing the trial. In the absence of such claims, the cancellation of bail was wholly unjustified."
The Court further held that "revoking statutory bail without any misconduct by the accused amounts to judicial overreach and undermines the fundamental principles of criminal procedure."
"Trial Court Acted as an Appellate Court Over a Concurrent Jurisdiction"
The High Court also found that the trial court had overstepped its jurisdiction by effectively reviewing and overturning the bail order of the Special Court, Tamluk, which had concurrent jurisdiction.
Criticizing this approach, the Court ruled, "The City Sessions Court, Calcutta, acted as if it were an appellate forum over the Special Court, Tamluk, without legal authority. A court with concurrent jurisdiction cannot sit in judgment over another court’s decision unless there is a specific challenge to the bail on legal grounds."
Bail Reinstated, Order of Custody Set Aside
Setting aside the August 21, 2024 order of the NIA Court, the High Court ruled:
•    The statutory bail granted to the accused on August 2 and 5, 2023, was legally valid and could not be revoked without sufficient cause.
•    The trial court wrongly questioned the original bail order instead of assessing the impact of new charges separately.
•    The accused had not misused their bail, and no conditions were violated, making the cancellation unjustified.
•    The NIA Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by reviewing a concurrent court’s bail order.
The Court restored bail to the accused on a bond of ₹50,000 each with two sureties of ₹25,000, one of whom must be local. The accused were directed to report weekly to the Officer-in-Charge of Moyna Police Station and appear before the trial court on all hearing dates.
Concluding the judgment, the Court observed: "Statutory bail is a fundamental right once granted. It cannot be taken away unless the prosecution establishes valid grounds. Courts must not undermine established legal principles by revoking bail without due cause."
 

Date of Decision: 12 March 2025