The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to Meenakshi, who was taken into custody after an appellate court cancelled her bail during the pendency of an appeal in a cheque dishonour case. The cancellation followed her changing lawyers multiple times, which the Court held was not a valid reason to insist on her personal appearance at every hearing or to issue non-bailable warrants.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, hearing Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 19050/2025, examined whether an appellate court can cancel bail and issue non-bailable warrants solely due to repeated changes of counsel, especially when the sentence had already been suspended.
The proceedings arose from a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involving dishonour of cheques amounting to ₹7 lakh and ₹5,00,240 issued by the petitioner’s mother. The trial court convicted them, and the appeal has been pending for more than eight years. Meenakshi had been granted bail in October 2017.
Her bail was later cancelled by the appellate court after she changed lawyers more than six times. Complications arose when her mother, Mary Parashar, reportedly passed away. A death certificate was filed, but the court refused to accept it without verification.
On August 22, 2025, Meenakshi sought exemption from personal appearance citing Herpes Zoster and supported it with medical documents. Although the exemption was allowed, her bail was recalled and non-bailable warrants were issued when the matter was called before she arrived on September 4. After surrendering on September 20 and seeking bail, the court took her into custody without decision, later rejecting her request.
The Supreme Court strongly criticised the approach taken by the appellate court. Justice Aravind Kumar said it was “appalling and shocking” that the court insisted on her personal presence at every hearing when her sentence had already been suspended. The Bench said the appellate court should have either appointed amicus curiae or given time to engage new counsel rather than recalling bail.
While noting that the petitioner’s conduct in repeatedly changing lawyers was not appreciated, the Court held that this alone could not justify issuing non-bailable warrants. The Bench stressed that the petitioner, a woman suffering from medical problems, should not be kept in custody while her appeal is still pending.
The Court ordered her release upon execution of a self-bond of ₹1 lakh and directed compliance by 4 pm on November 27, 2025. It also sought information from the State regarding existing rules to frame guidelines preventing similar incidents in future. Notice was issued to the State and the complainant, and the matter will be heard again in three weeks.
Counsel
For Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dhruv Gautam (AOR)
For State: Mr. Akshay Amritanshu (AOR)
Case Reference
Meenakshi vs. State of Haryana & Another
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 19050/2025
