Should a High Court’s grant of bail be interfered with when the accused, not named in the FIR, has already undergone long pre-trial incarceration without any misuse of liberty?

LawSikho
January 31, 2026
Category: Supreme Court of India

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
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms
Type of Law	Criminal law — bail jurisdiction
Questions of Law	Whether cancellation of bail granted by the High Court can be ordered in the absence of supervening circumstances? Whether long pre-trial incarceration and absence of misuse of liberty weigh against cancellation of bail?
Ratio Decidendi	The power to cancel bail is to be exercised only on “very cogent and overwhelming” grounds such as interference with the administration of justice, evasion of trial, or abuse of the concession granted. An order granting bail by the High Court will not be interfered with unless the discretion has been exercised without due application of mind or in contravention of Supreme Court directions. Long pre-trial incarceration (six and a half years) and absence of any allegation of misuse of liberty are relevant factors that fortify the exercise of discretion in favor of bail. The fact that the accused was not named in the FIR but arrested later on the basis of the victim’s dying declaration and a co-accused’s disclosure does not automatically warrant cancellation of bail. The Court must balance individual liberty with public interest, considering prima facie evidence, nature and gravity of offence, and likelihood of obstruction or evasion of justice.
Judgments Relied Upon	Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia (2020) 2 SCC 118 Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 598 Manjit Prakash & Ors. v. Shobha Devi & Anr. (2009) 13 SCC 785
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court	Strict contours for bail cancellation as laid down in Dolat Ram. Non-interference doctrine for bail orders per Mahipal. Balancing individual liberty against public interest and trial fairness.
Facts as Summarised by the Court	At about 6 a.m. on 25.10.2018, a panchayat Chairman was fatally shot in broad daylight at Kasba Preetnagar, Chopan (Sonbhadra). FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B & 34 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act was registered against named accused and “unknown persons.” Alleged shooter Kashmir Paswan was arrested and, on his disclosure, respondent No. 2 was arrested on 27.12.2018 though not named in the FIR. The deceased’s dying declaration and two witnesses implicated respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 suffered about six and a half years’ incarceration when bail was granted by the High Court.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts in India
Persuasive For	High Courts
Follows	Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia (2020) 2 SCC 118 Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Reaffirms that cancellation of bail demands “very cogent and overwhelming” supervening circumstances, not mere seriousness of offence.
Emphasises that long pre-trial incarceration (six-plus years) without misuse of liberty strongly weighs against cancellation.
Clarifies that an accused added post-FIR on dying declaration and disclosure may seek parity with co-accused and protection of liberty.
Confirms that absence of allegations of obstruction or evasion post-bail negates grounds for cancellation.
Lawyers can invoke this judgment to resist bail-cancellation petitions in similar factual matrices.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s exercise of bail-granting discretion complied with established precedents (Mahipal and Dolat Ram).
It noted that bail cancellation grounds are distinct from initial grant grounds and require supervening material—obstruction, evasion, or abuse of concession.
Respondent No. 2’s six-plus years of incarceration and lack of any misuse of bail liberty negated any such supervening grounds.
The Court balanced individual liberty against public interest, observing that the accused—never named in FIR—had a prima facie case but no fresh conduct justifying cancellation.
Held that interference with the High Court’s order would violate the non-interference principle absent contravention of Supreme Court directions.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (State of U.P.)

Respondent No. 2 is a “dreaded criminal” with local influence and long history of offences.
Involved in a daylight assassination using prohibited automatic weapons.
High Court ignored criminal history and threat to the informant’s life.
Bail cancellation warranted to protect public interest and fair trial.

Amicus Curiae

Bail cancellation operates under strict contours and only in exceptional cases.
No supervening circumstance—no interference with administration of justice, no evasion, no abuse of concession.
Appeal for cancellation thus unsustainable.

Respondent No. 2

Not named in FIR; arrested later on dying declaration and disclosure.
Served six and a half years in custody.
Sought parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail.

Factual Background

In October 2018, the panchayat Chairman was shot dead during morning exercise at Chopan. An FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B & 34 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act named two assailants and four unknown persons. Kashmir Paswan’s arrest led to respondent No. 2’s arrest on 27.12.2018 based on the victim’s dying declaration and the co-accused’s disclosure. He remained incarcerated for over six years before the High Court granted bail; co-accused had already secured bail.

Statutory Analysis

Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B & 34 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act formed the charge framework.
While no detailed statutory interpretation was undertaken, the judgment applied established principles on inherent powers to cancel bail under Section 482 CrPC as shaped by precedents.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed – The Court affirmed the established law on cancellation of bail without overturning precedent.