2004 INSC 0728
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                Laxman Nath

                                                      Vs.

                                         State of Madhya Pradesh

                                      S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4264 of 2003

                                  (B. N. Agarwal and H. K. Sema JJ.)

                                                 16.07.2004

                                                   ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed challenging order dated 30.4.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal
No. 124/1999 by the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby prayer for bail
made on behalf of the appellant was refused. The short facts are that the appellant was
convicted in a case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal code by trial Court
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal being preferred, the High Court
admitted the same and by its order dated 7.6.1999 granted bail. After the grant of bail, the
appellant was made accused in another case under Section 302 of the Penal code and in view
of that, on prayer being made by the prosecution, bail granted to the appellant was cancelled
by the High Court on 22.7.2002. Thereupon, in the second case, which was the ground for
cancellation of bail, though trial proceeded, but by order dated 31.3.2003 rendered by the
trial Court, the appellant was acquitted on merits. Against the said order, no appeal,
undisputedly, was preferred on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh whereas the private
prosecutor filed a revision before the High court which was dismissed on 8.1.2004. In the
meantime, the appellant filed a fresh application before the High Court for grant of bail
during the pendency of appeal in view of the aforesaid facts which has been rejected by the
impugned order.

3. Having heard the parties and perused the impugned order, we are of the opinion that in
view of the fact that the appellant has been already acquitted by the trial court in subsequent
case filed against him and the order of acquittal has been confirmed, the ground for
cancellation of bail, which was there in existence when the High Court cancelled the bail,
does not subsist. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in refusing the prayer for grant
of bail to the appellant.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the appellant is

1  SpotLaw
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10, 000/- to the satisfaction of
the trial Court.

2  SpotLaw