Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order setting aside the bail was perverse and illegal; the bail granted by the magistrate stands and the High Court order is quashed.

Summary

The appellant, Shuvendu Saha, was involved in a tenancy dispute with the respondent‑2 complainant, which was settled in a civil suit that was subsequently dismissed. Despite the settlement, the complainant filed a criminal complaint leading to an FIR for offences under Sections 409, 417, 418, 419, 420 and 506(2) IPC and the appellant was arrested. The magistrate granted interim bail on 7 May 2018 and confirmed it on 4 July 2018 after considering all statutory factors and giving the complainant a hearing. The complainant later obtained a revision before the Calcutta High Court, which set aside the bail on the basis of alleged non‑compliance with Rule 183 of the Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules and purported safety concerns for the complainant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court interfered perversely, as the bail order complied with Section 437 CrPC, the procedural defect was trivial, and cancellation of bail after eight years requires cogent, supervening circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court order, reinstated the bail, and rejected the High Court’s adverse remarks on the lower‑court judge.

Issues considered

Whether an order of interim bail can be set aside for non‑compliance with the procedural authentication requirements of Rule 183 of the Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985.
Whether the magistrate’s failure to record specific reasons for the victim’s objections violates the statutory duty under Section 2(w)(a) of the CrPC.
Whether the High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, may strike down a bail order granted by a magistrate in the absence of cogent, supervening circumstances.
Whether bail granted for magistrate‑triable offences can be cancelled after a lapse of eight years on hyper‑technical grounds.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 480
Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985s. Rule 183
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 156(3), s. 437
Constitution of Indias. Article 227
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 409, s. 417, s. 418, s. 419, s. 420, s. 506(2)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration The High Court, in a revision filed at the instance of the respondent no.2-complainant, set aside the order granting bail to the accused- appellant herein in a case involving offences triable by the Court of Magistrate after a gap of nearly 8 years. Headnotes† Code s.437 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.480 – Bail – Grant of – The dispute between the appellant and respondent no.2-complainant was regarding tenancy rights over a portion of a building – Respondent no.2-complainant instituted a civil suit

Subjects

Bailsublato fundamento cadit opusOpportunity of hearingSection 437 of CrPCCancellation of bailRule 183 of Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985Hyper-technical viewJudiciaryAdverse remarksCastigation of Judicial OfficersArticle 227 of ConstitutionPower of Superintendence conferred upon the High CourtFormat of remark slip

Judgment

[2026] 5 S.C.R. 221 : 2026 INSC 367

Shuvendu Saha
v.
The State of West Bengal and Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1836 of 2026)
09 April 2026
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
The High Court, in a revision filed at the instance of the respondent
no.2-complainant, set aside the order granting bail to the accused-
appellant herein in a case involving offences triable by the Court
of Magistrate after a gap of nearly 8 years.

Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.437 – Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.480 – Bail – Grant of – The dispute
between the appellant and respondent no.2-complainant
was regarding tenancy rights over a portion of a building –
Respondent no.2-complainant instituted a civil suit against
the appellant regarding the same – In the said proceedings,
the respondent no.2-complainant deposed that the disputes
between the parties was amicably settled – The Court, taking
note of the said statement, dismissed the suit – Concealing
this factum, respondent no.2-complainant filed a complaint
before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who in turn,
exercised powers u/s.156(3) of the CrPC and forwarded the
said complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, for
investigation, leading to the registration of FIR u/ss.409,
417, 418, 419, 420, and 506(ii) of the IPC – The appellant
was arrested – Subsequently, appellant was granted interim
bail and thereafter, bail was confirmed on 04.07.2018 – The
complainant filed a criminal revision before the High Court –
The High Court set aside the order granting interim bail as
well as the subsequent orders confirming bail on 06.03.2026 –
Correctness:
Held: On a perusal of the above order, it is clear that all parameters
for deciding a bail application filed u/s.437 CrPC (corresponding
s.480 of the BNSS) were considered by the Magistrate and even
* Author
222 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the respondent no.2-complainant was provided an opportunity
of hearing – There was no justification for the Single Judge of
the High Court to have interfered with the order granting bail,
more so after a lapse of nearly eight years from the date of order
granting bail – The issues highlighted in the complaint were
predominantly having civil overtones, and yet the Single Judge
proceeded to decide the revision as if it involved questions of grave
legal importance – Once the trial Court had exercised jurisdiction
u/s.437 CrPC to affirm the order of interim bail passed in favour
of the accused, the same could only be cancelled or set aside
on the principles governing cancellation of bail laid down by this
Court in a catena of decisions – The discretion of the High Court
was heavily swayed by the reason that safety of the respondent
no.2-complainant was at risk, was far removed from reality – The
order of the High Court does not reflect or refer to any such
event or incident which may have caused any life threat or risk to
the respondent no.2-complainant – The view taken by the High
Court is wholly perverse, apart from being in gross disregard of
the mandate of s.437 of CrPC – A Rule (Rule 183 of the Calcutta
High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985) contained
in the Criminal Rules and Orders, which governs the procedural
aspects of day-to-day functioning of criminal Courts, could not
have been invoked to override the substantive mandate of the
CrPC unless a gross failure of justice was demonstrated in the
proceedings – No palpable material on record to show that the
Magistrate had substantially breached the procedure provided
under the said rule – The impugned order is audaciously perverse
and illegal, and hence, the same cannot be sustained. [Paras 21,
22, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33]

Judiciary – Adverse remarks – Castigation of Judicial Officers –
Recording of adverse remarks/strictures against them by
the High Court – Power of superintendence is not a tool of
oppression:
Held: It has become a trend to castigate Judicial Officers and
record adverse remarks/strictures against them in judicial orders
passed by the High Court in the exercise of supervisory, appellate
or revisional jurisdiction – The High Court, being a Court of record
in the State, is expected to act as the guardian of the Officers
in district judiciary – While finding infirmities in the order passed
by a Judicial Officer, the immediate reaction ought not to be to
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 223

Shuvendu Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.

make adverse or disparaging observations against the concerned
Judicial Officer in a judicial dispensation – Such disparaging
remarks/strictures may ruin the career of the Judicial Officer in
addition to demoralising the district judiciary as a whole – Power of
superintendence conferred upon the High Courts by Art.227 of the
Constitution of India ought not to be used as a tool of oppression
but rather as a mechanism for nurturing and guiding the Judicial
Officers in the State. [Paras 35, 36]

Constitution of India – Art.227 – Power of Superintendence
conferred upon the High Court – Mechanism to guide Judicial
Officers – Merits or quality of the order to be noted on the
remark slip:
Held: In some High Courts an in-house mechanism is already in
place to take care of a situation, whenever any flaw or infirmity is
noted in any order passed by the trial Judge by the High Court
while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction – The observations of
the Hon’ble Judge/Bench on the merits or quality of the order or
the proceedings of the presiding officer of the trial Court can be
noted in a remark slip which, in turn, would be placed before the
administrative Judge or the Chief Justice of the High Court, as the
case may be, for necessary follow-up action. [Para 37]
Constitution of India – Art.227 – Power of Superintendence
conferred upon the High Court – Merits or quality of the
order passed by Judicial Officers – A format of remark-slip –
Illustrated. [Para 38]

Case Law Cited
Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [1994] Supp. 6 SCR 69 : (1995)
1 SCC 349 – relied on.
X v. State of Telangana [2018] 4 SCR 466 : (2018) 16 SCC 511;
CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan [2011] 5 SCR 824 : (2011)
5 SCC 296; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [2015] 10 SCR 802 :
(2016) 15 SCC 422 – referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Constitution of India; Calcutta
High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985.
224 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

List of Keywords
Bail; sublato fundamento cadit opus; Opportunity of hearing;
Section 437 of CrPC; Cancellation of bail; Rule 183 of Calcutta High
Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985; Hyper-technical
view; Judiciary; Adverse remarks; Castigation of Judicial Officers;
Art.227 of Constitution; Power of Superintendence conferred upon
the High Court; Format of remark slip.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1836 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2026 of the High Court
at Calcutta in CRR No. 1248 of 2018.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Siva Prasad Ghose, Anondo Mukherjee, Ms. Parul Sharma, Jitender
Kumar, Anil Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Rohit Dutta, Anas Tanwir, Suryanu Sengupta, Dhrubajit Saikia,
Ms. A. Banerjee, Ms. Geetanjali Nagpal, Kunal Mimani, Prashant
Alai, Abhinav Rana.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Kunal Mimani, learned counsel appearing for the State of West
Bengal, accepts notice on advance service. Mr. Rohit Dutta, learned
counsel, appears via video conferencing on behalf of respondent
No.21 on caveat.

1 Hereinafter, referred to as the “respondent No.2-complainant”.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 225

Shuvendu Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.

4. Leave granted.
5. Facts involved in the present appeal manifest a remarkably perverse
exercise of revisional jurisdiction by learned Single Judge of the High
Court at Calcutta2 who has, in a revision filed at the instance of the
respondent No.2-complainant, set aside the order granting bail to
the accused-appellant3 herein in a case involving offences triable
by Court of Magistrate after a gap of nearly 8 years on absolutely
hyper technical and untenable reasons.
6. The dispute between the appellant and respondent No.2-complainant
is with regard to tenancy rights over a portion of a building, which
was purchased by the appellant from its erstwhile owner. Respondent
No.2-complainant instituted a civil suit against the appellant, being
Title Suit No.328 of 2016, seeking declaration of her tenancy in
respect of a room admeasuring approximately 150 sq. ft.
7. On 15th September, 2017, in the proceedings of the civil suit, the
respondent No.2-complainant entered the witness box and deposed
that the disputes between the parties had been amicably settled and,
in view thereof, she did not wish to proceed with the said suit. The
Court, taking note of the said statement, recorded that the dispute
stood settled between the parties and dismissed the suit by an
order of the even date. Concealing the factum of the aforesaid civil
proceedings and the settlement, the respondent No.2-complainant
filed a complaint on 28th November, 2017 before the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate4, Sealdah, who in turn, by order dated
28th November, 2017 exercised powers under Section 156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure5 and forwarded the said complaint to
the Officer-in-Charge, Cossipore Police Station, for investigation,
leading to the registration of FIR No.257 dated 8th December, 2017
for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 417, 418, 419, 420,
and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 18606.
8. The appellant was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case
and was produced before the Magistrate concerned on 3rd May,

2 Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
3 Hereinafter, referred to as the “appellant” or “accused”.
4 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘‘Magistrate”.
5 For short, ‘CrPC’.
6 For short, ‘IPC’.
226 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

2018. His initial prayer for bail came to be rejected on the same
day. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate granted interim bail to the
appellant on 7th May, 2018, which was thereafter confirmed by the
learned Magistrate on 4th July, 2018. The complainant challenged the
order granting interim bail to the appellant by filing Criminal Revision
No.1248 of 2018 before the High Court.
9. Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said revision by
the impugned order dated 6th March, 2026, holding that the Magistrate
had acted contrary to Rule 183 of the Calcutta High Court Criminal
(Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985, and that there was an infirmity
in the order of the learned Magistrate, which only bore his initials
and lacked proper authentication. The High Court, accordingly, set
aside the order granting interim bail as well as the subsequent orders
confirming bail.
10. The learned Single Judge further held that the order granting bail was
also vitiated on account of not providing an opportunity of effective
hearing to the respondent No.2-complainant. While concluding the
order, the learned Single Judge granted interim protection to the
appellant.
11. The aforesaid order dated 6th March, 2026 is under challenge at
the instance of the appellant in the present appeal by special leave.
12. We have extensively heard learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the impugned order and the material placed on record.
13. Learned counsel representing the appellant has placed for our perusal
a copy of the order dated 16th March, 2026 passed by the learned
ACJM, Sealdah, whereby the appellant, upon being re-arrested post
passing of the impugned order, was presented before the learned
Magistrate and was granted bail on certain terms and conditions.
We could have closed these proceedings on this premise alone.
However, we deem it necessary that some discussion be made on
the order passed by the High Court, which, ex facie, suffers from
gross perversity.
14. First of all, we may note that in a case involving Magistrate triable
offences, the appellant had been granted bail by the jurisdictional
Magistrate way back in the year 2018. The revision preferred by
respondent No.2-complainant against the said order granting bail
came to be heard and decided by the learned Single Judge of the
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 227

Shuvendu Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.

High Court in the year 2026, and on absolutely hyper-technical
grounds and by undertaking a hair-splitting exercise, the learned
Single Judge proceeded to set aside the order granting bail to the
appellant.
15. We are of the firm opinion that the learned Single Judge misdirected
himself while setting aside the order granting bail passed by the
learned Magistrate. It is manifest from the impugned order that the
learned Single Judge failed to advert to the fact that prior to the
lodging of the complaint, respondent No.2-complainant had filed a
civil suit in relation to the very same dispute, wherein, she made a
deposition stating that the matter had been amicably settled and,
therefore, the suit was not required to be proceeded with.
16. Consequently, based on the said statement, the civil suit was
dismissed on 15th September, 2017 noting that the dispute stood
amicably settled. Concealing this material fact, respondent No.2-
complainant preferred the application under Section 156(3) of CrPC,
on the basis whereof FIR No.257 dated 8th December, 2017 came
to be registered against the appellant at Police Station Cossipore.
17. On going through the FIR, we find the same to be highly belated
and additionally, even if the allegations set out in the FIR were
accepted as true on the face of record, the case has overtones of a
civil dispute, plain and simple, and hence, it was not a case wherein
the accused could have been denied bail.
18. Needless to state that cancellation of bail/setting aside of the bail
order impinges upon the liberty of an individual. Law is well settled
by a catena of decisions7 of this Court that orders granting bail ought
not to be lightly interfered with.
19. In the present case, which involves magistrate triable offences, the
accused had been arrested on 3rd May, 2018, and he was granted
interim bail by the learned Magistrate on 7th May, 2018, which order
was subsequently confirmed on 4th July, 2018.
20. For the sake of ready reference, we extract the order dated 7th May,
2018, passed by the learned Magistrate: -

7 X v. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511; Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349; CBI v.
Subramani Gopalakrishnan, (2011) 5 SCC 296; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422.
228 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“Heard both sides. Perused C/R and C/D perused petition
filed by defacto complainant. Heard Ld. Advocate for the
defacto complainant.
Considering-
a) Period of detention
b) No progress in investigation during P/C period.
c) No prayer for further P/C by I/O.
d) No prayer for custodial interrogation.
e) No mention to threat to defacto in today’s remand by I/O.
I do not find any reason for further detention of prosecute
accused in I/C in the interest of investigation. Hence, all
objections raised against bail are turned down. Bail prayer
is allowed, albeit on interim basis.
Sole accused may be enlarged on A/I bail of Rs.2000/-with
1 surety (sic) Rs. of like amount. ID to J/C.
If no bail to 7.6.18 for app. Further order as to bail and
report.
Return C/D.
Sd/-”
21. On a perusal of the above order, it is clear that all parameters
for deciding a bail application filed under Section 437 CrPC
(corresponding Section 480 of the BNSS) were considered by the
learned Magistrate and even the respondent No.2-complainant
was provided an opportunity of hearing. Hence, we have no
hesitation in holding that there was no justification whatsoever for
the learned Single Judge to have interfered with the order granting
bail, more so after a lapse of nearly eight years from the date of
order granting bail.
22. We, emphatically reiterate that the issues highlighted in the complaint
were predominantly having civil overtones, and yet the learned Single
Judge proceeded to decide the revision as if it involved questions
of grave legal importance. The following questions of law and fact
were in fact formulated and thereafter adjudicated upon: -
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 229

Shuvendu Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.

“6. The resolution of the instant revision hinges upon the
following pivotal questions of law and fact:
i. whether an order of interim bail is sustainable in law if it
fails to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards
enshrined in Rule 183 of the Criminal Rules and Orders
(Cr.R.O.) regarding authentication?
ii. whether the Learned Magistrate’s refusal to record
specific reasons for “turning down” the victim’s objections,
despite the mandate of Section 2(wa) of the Code,
constitutes an abdication of judicial duty?
iii. whether this Court, in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227, is empowered to strike
down an order passed in manifest violation of binding
administrative directions and judicial precedents of the
High Court?”
23. The learned Single Judge, for cancelling the bail granted to the
accused in a case involving Magistrate’s triable offences after 8
years of the event and after nearly 15 years of the alleged offence,
assigned the following reasons in the impugned order: -
“21. Upon a holistic consideration of the facts and the settled
position of law, I am of the firm opinion that the impugned
order of bail suffers from a dual infirmity-procedural and
substantive. Procedurally, the total disregard for the
authentication protocols under Rule 183 of the Cr.R.O. and
the binding directives of this Court in Sharmistha Chowdhuri
(supra) renders the record a mere scrap of paper lacking
judicial solemnity. Substantively, the failure to recognize
the statutory rights of the “victim” under Section 2(w)(a)
of the Code and the summary dismissal of documented
life-threats constitutes a manifest failure of justice.
22. Therefore, this Court arrives at the legal conclusion
that the liberty of an accused, while precious, cannot be
protected by an order that is “born in sin,” i.e., an order
passed in defiance of the High Court’s administrative
and judicial discipline. A bail order which is (a) unsigned
or partially initialled in violation of Rule 183 Cr.R.O., (b)
unreasoned regarding the specific objections of a victim,
230 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and (c) indifferent to the history of witness intimidation,
is a perverse order that the High Court is duty-bound to
strike down under Section 482 and under Article 227 of
the Constitution to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
23. This Court finds that the Learned Magistrate exercised
his discretion arbitrarily and in defiance of binding
precedents. The subsequent confirmation of bail cannot
validate an order that failed to consider the life-threat
to the elderly widow/petitioner. Consequentially, it is
ordered that:
a. the order dated May 7, 2018, and all subsequent
orders confirming the bail of Opposite Party No. 2,
Suvendu Saha, are hereby set aside and quashed.
The liberty granted to the accused stands revoked
with immediate effect.
b. the Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to surrender
before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sealdah, within 48 hours from the communication of
this order. Failure to do so shall result in immediate
arrest of the petitioner / accused by the Officer-in-
Charge, Cossipore P.S. and produce him before the
Court below in custody.
c. Upon surrender/arrest, the Learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate shall hear the bail prayer de
novo, providing a mandatory and meaningful hearing
to the Victim or her authorized counsel, perusing the
updated Case Diary and specifically record findings on
the allegations of post-arrest threats and intimidation,
and recording the order in strict compliance with Rule
183 Cr.R.O. and the format mandated in Sharmistha
Chowdhuri.
d. The failure of the Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate to comply with the mandatory
requirements of Rule 183 of the Cr.R.O. and the
administrative circulars issued by this Court, is a
matter of grave concern. Judicial discipline requires
that District courts strictly adhere to the formats and
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 231

Shuvendu Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.

protocols established by the High Court to ensure
the transparency and integrity of judicial records.
e. the Registrar (Judicial Service) is directed to
call for an explanation from the concerned Judicial
Officer as to why the mandatory provisions of Rule
183 and the administrative circulars of this Court
were bypassed. A copy of this order shall be placed
in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) dossier of
the said officer, and a formal warning shall be issued
to ensure future circumspection.
f. To prevent such “jurisdictional insubordination” from
becoming a norm, the Registrar General is directed
to re-circulate the mandatory directions contained in
Paragraphs 35, 36, and 37 of Sharmistha Chowdhuri
to all judicial officers in the State of West Bengal and
the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
g. All District Judges are directed to ensure compliance
through periodic inspections of order-sheets. Any
persistent default by any judicial officer in signing
order sheets in full or taking external assistance
for recording orders shall be reported to the High
Court on the administrative side for the initiation of
appropriate departmental proceedings.
h. The Director of the West Bengal State Judicial
Academy is directed to include a specific module on
the “Recording of Judicial Orders and Authentication
of Records” in the induction and refresher courses for
judicial officers, emphasizing the legal consequences
of non-compliance with the Criminal Rules and
Orders.
i. The Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, is directed
to ensure adequate and continuous protection for
the Petitioner and her family. The interim protection
already granted shall remain in force until the final
disposal of the de novo bail prayer by the Court below.”
24. Learned Single Judge, while setting aside the order of the Magistrate,
held the order granting bail to be arbitrary and in defiance of binding
232 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

precedents. The learned Single Judge also directed the Registrar
General to call for an explanation from the concerned Judicial
Officer and considered the same to be a case of “jurisdictional
insubordination” which had to be prevented. We feel that the aforesaid
observations were wholly misplaced and uncalled for.
25. The High Court proceeded on the premise of the latin maxim ‘sublato
fundamento cadit opus’, which, translated literally, means ‘when
infrastructure fails, superstructure must fail’. We are of the firm
opinion that the said maxim had no application to the case at hand
as herein, the purported infrastructure was the order dated 7th May,
2018, granting interim bail to the accused which stood subsumed
in the final order granting bail dated 4th July, 2018. It is absolutely
unacceptable that the final order granting bail could have been set
at naught merely because in the opinion of the High Court, some
infirmities existed in the order granting interim bail to the accused.
Once the trial Court had exercised jurisdiction under Section 437 CrPC
to affirm the order of interim bail passed in favour of the accused,
the same could only be cancelled or set aside on the principles
governing cancellation of bail laid down by this Court in a catena of
decisions. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the judgment of
this Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana8, the relevant paragraph
whereof is extracted hereinbelow:-
“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the
initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted,
have to be considered and dealt with on different
basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances
are necessary for an order directing the cancellation
of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking,
the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly
(illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference
or attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice or evasion or attempt
to evade the due course of justice or abuse of
the concession granted to the accused in any
manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the
basis of material placed on the record of the

8 (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 233

Shuvendu Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.

possibility of the accused absconding is yet
another reason justifying the cancellation of bail.
However, bail once granted should not be cancelled
in a mechanical manner without considering whether
any supervening circumstances have rendered it no
longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused
to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession
of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears,
were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided
to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court
it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the
factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable
case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail
already granted.”
[Emphasis supplied]

26. The discretion of the High Court was also heavily swayed by the
reason that safety of the respondent No.2-complainant was at risk.
We feel that the said observation of the High Court was far removed
from reality.
27. The order granting bail was passed in the year 2018, whereas the
revision came to be heard and decided in the year 2026. Neither
does the order of the High Court reflect so nor was any such
material available on record which could have compelled the High
Court to hold that there was any risk to the life of the respondent
No.2-complainant. The order of the High Court does not reflect or
refer to any such event or incident which may have caused any life
threat or risk to the respondent No.2-complainant. Hence, we are
of the firm opinion that the order passed by the High Court suffers
from total non-application of mind.
28. Graciously enough, while setting aside the bail granted to the accused,
the High Court directed that adequate protection be provided to the
respondent No.2-complainant and that the interim protection granted
to the accused shall remain in force till the final disposal of the de
novo bail prayer by the jurisdictional Court. In consequence thereof,
the accused surrendered before the trial Court and has been released
on bail by order dated 16th March, 2026, which has been placed for
our perusal by learned counsel for the accused.
234 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

29. We find that the view taken by the High Court is wholly perverse,
apart from being in gross disregard of the mandate of Section 437
of CrPC. The learned Single Judge gave primacy to Rule 183 of the
Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985 to set
at naught an order granting bail to the accused under the provisions
of CrPC. We, prima facie, feel that a Rule contained in the Criminal
Rules and Orders, which governs the procedural aspects of day-to-
day functioning of criminal Courts, could not have been invoked to
override the substantive mandate of the CrPC unless a gross failure
of justice was demonstrated in the proceedings.
30. On going through the order dated 7th May, 2018 passed by the learned
Magistrate granting interim bail to the accused, we find that the same
records that an opportunity of hearing was granted to respondent
No.2-complainant and assigns cogent and substantial reasons for
releasing the accused on bail.
31. Rule 183 of Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules,
1985, on which the order of the learned Single Judge is premised,
provides that orders requiring the exercise of judicial discretion and
the final order shall be recorded by the Magistrate in his own hand
or typed by him, others may be recorded under his direction by the
Bench Clerk.
32. However, we do not find any palpable material on record to show
that the learned Magistrate had substantially breached the procedure
provided under the said rule while drawing up the order granting bail
to the accused. The violation, if any, was too hyper-technical and
trivial so as to be made a ground for setting aside the bail granted
to the accused nearly 8 years ago.
33. Therefore, we have no option but to hold that the impugned order
is audaciously perverse and illegal, and hence, the same cannot
be sustained. The impugned order dated 6th March, 2026, is hence
quashed and set aside.
34. Though we have already quashed and set aside the impugned order
in entirety still, for ensuring that the service career of the concerned
Judicial officer is not adversely effected, we further emphasize and
provide that the directions given by the learned Single Judge in
paragraphs e, f, g and h of the impugned order making observations
on the conduct of the Ld. Judicial Officer; directing placement of the
impugned order dated 6th March, 2026 in the Annual Confidential
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 235

Shuvendu Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.

Report (A.C.R.) of the Judicial Officer; directing the Registrar (Judicial
Service) to call for an explanation from the Judicial Officer and
making an observation that the order passed by the Judicial Officer
tantamounted to “jurisdictional insubordination” shall stand expressly
omitted, quashed and set aside.
35. Before parting, we may record a discordant note that it has become a
recent trend to castigate Judicial Officers and record adverse remarks/
strictures against them in judicial orders passed by the High Court
in the exercise of supervisory, appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
The High Court, being a Court of record in the State, is expected to
act as the guardian of the Officers in district judiciary. While finding
infirmities in the order passed by a Judicial Officer, the immediate
reaction ought not to be to make adverse or disparaging observations
against the concerned Judicial Officer in a judicial dispensation.
36. Such disparaging remarks/strictures may ruin the career of the
Judicial Officer in addition to demoralising the district judiciary as a
whole. Power of superintendence conferred upon the High Courts
by Article 227 of the Constitution of India ought not to be used as
a tool of oppression but rather as a mechanism for nurturing and
guiding the Judicial Officers in the State.
37. In some High Courts an in-house mechanism is already in place to
take care of a situation, whenever any flaw or infirmity is noted in any
order passed by the trial Judge by the High Court while exercising
the supervisory jurisdiction. The observations of the Hon’ble Judge/
Bench on the merits or quality of the order or the proceedings of
the presiding officer of the trial Court can be noted in a remark slip
which, in turn, would be placed before the administrative Judge or the
Chief Justice of the High Court, as the case may be, for necessary
follow-up action.
38. For the sake of illustration, the format of such remark-slip which is
provided in the practice and procedure of the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan is extracted hereinbelow: -
COURT REMARKS ON THE
JUDGMENT DATED …………..
X v. Y
RENDERED BY SHRI..................................
****
236 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Description of case.
No. ________________ of 20
Date of Judgment ……..
(a) Judgment dated ………: -
(1) Whether lucid, to the point, logical,
(2) Whether discussion of evidence and thorough.
(3) Whether sentence or order appropriate.
(4) Whether above standard or below standard.
(b) Conduct of proceedings: -
[Here any remarks about clearing of pleadings, framing
of issues or charge sheets, control over examination of
witnesses, proper keeping of double record, eliciting of all
material facts, adjournments, delay in delivery of judgment
and doing of full day’s work may be entered.]
Note:- (1) Bench Reader will attach this slip at
the top of the first page of each judgment
when the Judge is being asked to sign that
judgment.
(2) The slip containing the remarks shall be
sent to the Hon’ble Judge in the Administrative
Department.
PROFORMA

S. Particulars of the Particular of the case Whether
No. case in the lower of the High Court categories
court viz No. of viz. No. of appeal/ as standard
case/appeal/tile/ revision, title and o r N o
date of decision date of decision remarks

39. It is our firm opinion that it would be highly advisable if similar
practice of recording remarks on various facets of the judgments/
orders passed by Officers in the district judiciary is adopted
by all High Courts for appropriate action on the administrative
side.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 237

Shuvendu Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.

40. The Registry shall circulate a copy of this order to the Registrar
Generals of all the High Courts for being placed before the Hon’ble
Chief Justice for information and such follow-up action as may be
deemed appropriate.
41. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
42. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan