SHUVENDU SAHA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2026] 5 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 09-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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. T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.