Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000541-000541 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 11312/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Precedent Value | Affirms existing law on cancellation of bail |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that cancellation of bail must be based on exceptional, supervening circumstances and cannot be mechanical.
- Emphasises that prolonged pre-trial incarceration (6½ years) without any misuse of liberty weighs heavily in favour of bail continuation.
- Confirms that an accused added post-FIR on dying declaration and disclosure statement is entitled to the same bail scrutiny principles.
- Counsel may cite this judgment to resist bail-cancellation applications where no fresh adverse material or interference with justice is shown.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court applied the test from Mahipal and Dolat Ram that cancellation of bail requires “cogent and overwhelming circumstances” or evidence of interference with the administration of justice.
- It distinguished between initial rejection of bail and cancellation, highlighting the need for a due application of mind and supervening factors before disturbing bail.
- It noted that the accused was not named in the FIR, was arrested later on dying declaration and disclosure, and had already served 6½ years of pre-trial incarceration.
- There was no allegation of misuse of liberty or any fresh material justifying cancellation; co-accused had been granted bail on similar facts.
- Balancing individual liberty against public interest, the Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s discretion.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant’s Counsel)
- Respondent No.2 is a dangerous criminal with local influence, involved in a broad-daylight murder using prohibited weapons.
- Respondent No.2 hired another for assassination, remained absconding, and has a long criminal history ignored by the High Court.
- There is strong apprehension of threat to the appellant/informant’s life; correct facts were not placed before the High Court.
Amicus Curiae
- Cancellation of bail is governed by strict contours; only exceptional circumstances justify it.
- In the absence of any supervening adverse material or misconduct, bail once granted should not be disturbed.
Factual Background
On 25 October 2018, the panchayat Chairman was fatally shot at about 6 a.m. while exercising at Kasba Preetnagar, Chopan. An FIR (Crime No. 238/2018) was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. The main accused was arrested on 27 December 2018 based on the victim’s dying declaration and a co-accused’s disclosure statement. Respondent No.2 then spent approximately six and a half years in custody before the High Court granted him bail.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act formed the substantive charges.
- The judgment applied inherent powers principles governing bail and its cancellation, as articulated in Supreme Court precedents, without any “reading down” or “reading in” of the IPC or CrPC provisions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on bail cancellation under inherent powers affirmed.