![Notice to Absent Convict Advisable Before Amicus Argues Appeal, 2003 Appeal Remanded for De Novo Hearing: Supreme Court in Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand [2026 INSC 257]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: When a High Court appoints an amicus curiae for a convict whose own counsel is absent, it is a desirable precaution to notify the convict. The Supreme Court remanded a murder appeal that the Jharkhand High Court had heard through an amicus, without notice to the appellant, more than twenty years after he was granted bail. It refused to let the appellant raise, for the first time before it, grounds not pressed in the High Court, restored his bail and suggested a notice procedure for future cases where an amicus is appointed for an absent convict.
In Bhola Mahto v. The State of Jharkhand (2026 INSC 257), the Supreme Court held that a convict who enjoyed bail for two decades without following his appeal cannot blame the amicus for not urging his grounds, and cannot raise those grounds before the Supreme Court for the first time (para 13). Yet, since no notice of his counsel's absence and the amicus's appointment had been sent to him, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the appeal for a de novo hearing (paras 9, 14–15). A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also suggested that appellate courts appointing an amicus for an absent convict may issue notice to him through the jurisdictional police station (para 23).
Status: Jharkhand High Court judgment dated 02.12.2024 in CRADB No. 58 of 2003 set aside; appeal revived for de novo hearing; appellant to be released on bail forthwith; appeal partly allowed (paras 15, 19–21).
Headnote: Amicus Appointed Without Notice to Convict
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 304 Part II, Exception 4 to Section 300 – Criminal appeal pending for two decades – Convict on bail – Counsel absent – Amicus curiae appointed without notice to convict – Legal aid must be real and meaningful – Grounds not urged in High Court not to be raised first in Supreme Court – Remand for de novo hearing – Restoration of bail – Notice procedure for absent convicts.
Held: (i) Grounds in the memorandum of appeal not urged by the amicus before the High Court cannot be raised before the Supreme Court for the first time; the amicus is not to be blamed, and a convict on bail for two decades who did not track his appeal has himself to blame (para 13).
(ii) The High Court's appointment of an amicus and its effort to expedite the appeal were not unjustified (para 13).
(iii) The High Court was under no obligation to inform the appellant of his counsel's absence, but it would have been a desirable precaution, since legal aid must be real and meaningful and not a token gesture (para 14).
(iv) The appeal was remanded for de novo hearing, preferably before the same Judges or a Bench including at least one of them, with all points on merit kept open (paras 15–16, 18).
(v) As the impugned judgment was set aside, the status quo ante was restored and the appellant was to be released on bail; his liberty is not to be curtailed until the appeal is decided (paras 19–20).
(vi) Appellate courts appointing an amicus for an absent convict may issue notice through the jurisdictional police station; if the convict remains dormant after service, the High Court may decide the appeal; convicts in custody for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment remain covered by Anokhi Lal (paras 22–23).
(paras 13–23)
Case Details: Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand (2026 INSC 257)
Final Outcome: Criminal Appeal partly allowed; High Court judgment set aside; appeal remanded for de novo hearing; appellant released on bail on terms set by the trial court.
Case: Bhola Mahto v. The State of Jharkhand
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 257
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19427 of 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 16 March 2026
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (the judgment does not name the author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 304 Part II and Exception 4 to Section 300
Impugned Order: Judgment dated 02.12.2024 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in CRADB No. 58 of 2003, altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC with 5 years' rigorous imprisonment (para 2)
Source: Supreme Court of India
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- A convict cannot ask the Supreme Court to consider, for the first time, grounds that were not pressed before the High Court (para 13).
- No fault lies with an amicus who, appointed when no one appeared, urged one ground and succeeded (para 13).
- Notice to the convict, though not obligatory, would have been a desirable precaution where the appeal was heard twenty-one years after his release on bail (para 14).
- Legal aid should be real and meaningful, not a token gesture or an idle formality (para 14).
- The appeal was remanded for de novo hearing with bail restored (paras 15, 19–20).
- For the future, appellate courts may serve notice on an absent convict through the jurisdictional police station before proceeding with an amicus (para 23).
Brief Facts of the Case
The appellant was convicted by the sessions court on 25.11.2002 for a murder committed on 28.10.2000 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed an appeal before the Jharkhand High Court in early 2003. In custody since 29.10.2000, he was released on 10.03.2003, apparently on suspension of sentence (paras 2, 4).
The appeal was not listed for about 20 years. On 14.11.2024, when no one appeared for the appellant, the Division Bench appointed an advocate of more than 15 years' standing as amicus. On 02.12.2024 the amicus argued only that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The High Court accepted this, altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, reduced the sentence to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and directed the appellant to surrender (paras 4–6). He was taken back into custody on 30.12.2024 (para 19).
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant said he was not told that his counsel was absent or that an amicus had been appointed. A report dated 19.11.2025 of the Registrar General of the High Court showed that no such notice had been issued. He sought to urge all the grounds in his memorandum of appeal to obtain an acquittal (paras 8–9, 11–12).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the appellant could urge before the Supreme Court the grounds in his memorandum of appeal that the amicus had not pressed in the High Court (paras 12–13).
- Whether the hearing of the appeal through an amicus, without notice to the appellant, called for interference (paras 14–15).
- What procedure appellate courts should follow when a convict's counsel is absent (paras 22–23).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
No new grounds before the Supreme Court (para 13): The Court rejected the plea to examine the grounds of the memorandum of appeal. The amicus was appointed because the appeal had been pending for over two decades without representation; he urged one ground and succeeded. The appellant, on bail and not disabled from contacting his counsel, had himself to blame for not keeping track of his appeal.
Notice a desirable precaution (paras 9, 14): The Registrar General's report showed that no notice was issued to the appellant. Though the High Court was under no obligation to inform him, notice would have been a desirable precaution, since legal aid should be real and meaningful, and the appeal was listed twenty-one years after his release on bail.
Remand and bench (paras 15–17): The judgment was set aside and the appeal revived. Preferably the same Judges, or a Bench with at least one of them, should hear it. Since the appellant wishes to be represented by his own counsel, no amicus need be appointed if that counsel does not appear on the date notified a week in advance.
Expedition and bail (paras 18–20): As the incident dates to 28.10.2000 and the appellant claims to be a septuagenarian, the appeal should be decided early, uninfluenced by the set-aside judgment. With the status quo ante restored, he is to be released on bail on terms imposed by the trial court.
Notice procedure for absent convicts (paras 22–23): Referring to the norms in Anokhi Lal, the Court observed that convicts on bail often stay away from their appeals. It suggested that an appellate court appointing an amicus for an absent convict may issue notice through the jurisdictional police station, allow his own counsel to be heard in addition to the amicus, treat pasting of the notice at the address as sufficient where he is not found or refuses, and then proceed if he remains dormant. This also helps the court learn whether the appeal has abated.
Final Outcome and Directions
- High Court judgment dated 02.12.2024 set aside; appeal revived on the file of the High Court for de novo hearing (para 15).
- Chief Justice of the High Court requested to assign the appeal to a Bench of the same Judges or including at least one of them (para 16).
- Hearing date to be notified a week in advance; no amicus needed if the appellant's counsel does not appear; if unrepresented again, the Bench may decide as it thinks fit (para 17).
- Appeal to be decided as early as possible; all points on merit kept open (para 18).
- Appellant to be released on bail forthwith on terms imposed by the trial court; liberty not to be curtailed until the appeal is decided (paras 19–20).
- Appeal partly allowed; pending applications disposed of (para 21).
Legal Principle Laid Down
A convict who stays away from his appeal while on bail cannot raise, for the first time before the Supreme Court, grounds that were not pressed before the High Court by the amicus appointed for him. However, legal aid through an amicus must be real and meaningful, and when an appeal is heard decades after bail, notice to the convict of his counsel's absence and the amicus's appointment is a desirable precaution; its absence may justify a remand for de novo hearing (paras 13–15, 23).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 20 SCC 196 – Relied upon – expedition must not sacrifice fairness; norms for appointment of amicus curiae. Discussed at paras 22–23.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 13: "Appellant was enjoying the concession of bail for two decades without being in any manner concerned about the fate of his appeal."
Para 13: "We hasten to add that whatever be the worth of the grounds so raised, the appellant cannot appeal to us to consider the same for the first time once it is found that such grounds were not pressed for consideration by the High Court."
Para 14: "The High Court was under no obligation to inform the appellant of his counsel’s absence; however, it would have been a desirable precaution if the appellant were so informed."
Para 14: "This is more so, because, this Court has taken the view that assistance in the form of legal aid should be real and meaningful and not by way of a token gesture or to complete an idle formality."
Para 20: "We clarify that the liberty of the appellant shall not be curtailed till such time the appeal is disposed of by the Division Bench on its own merits in terms of this order."
Para 23: "Should the convict still remain dormant, and it is so reported, the High Court may proceed to decide the appeal without waiting for the convict to turn up either in person or through the counsel of his choice engaged by him."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For convicts on bail: They must keep track of their pending appeals; grounds not pressed in the High Court cannot later be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court (para 13).
- For High Courts: When an amicus is appointed for an absent convict, notice through the jurisdictional police station is advisable, and pasting at the address is sufficient if he is not found or refuses (paras 14, 23).
- For amici curiae: An amicus who presses the ground he considers best is not at fault for not urging every ground in the memorandum (para 13).
- For old appeals: Notice also helps ascertain whether an appeal survives or has abated, saving judicial time (para 23).
FAQs on Amicus Appointed Without Notice to Convict
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand?
It set aside the High Court's judgment, remanded the appeal for de novo hearing and directed the appellant's release on bail (paras 15, 19–21).
2. Was the High Court bound to inform the convict that his counsel was absent?
No, but the Supreme Court said it would have been a desirable precaution, particularly as the appeal was listed twenty-one years after bail (para 14).
3. Could the appellant argue all grounds of his memorandum of appeal before the Supreme Court?
No. Grounds not pressed before the High Court cannot be considered by the Supreme Court for the first time (para 13).
4. What procedure did the Court suggest for absent convicts?
Notice from the registry served through the jurisdictional police station, with pasting at the address if he is not found or refuses; if he remains dormant, the High Court may decide the appeal (para 23).
5. Does this change the Anokhi Lal norms?
No. For convicts in custody for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, the Anokhi Lal directions must still be scrupulously followed (paras 22–23).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 257, Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, amicus curiae, notice to convict, absent counsel, legal aid, de novo hearing, remand, criminal appeal pending, convict on bail, Section 374(2) CrPC, Section 304 Part II IPC, Exception 4 Section 300 IPC, Anokhi Lal, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).