Recently, the Supreme Court held that when a second or subsequent bail application is considered after cancellation or rejection of an earlier bail plea, the Court granting bail must specifically record fresh grounds or changed circumstances justifying such relief, while setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s order granting bail to an accused in an attempt to murder and Arms Act case. The Bench observed that a bail order ignoring vital materials on record and earlier judicial findings becomes “perverse” and liable to interference.
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from an incident arising out of an earlier murder case in which the complainant’s family allegedly faced threats and pressure to compromise. An FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506, and 307 IPC along with Sections 3, 25, and 27 of the Arms Act after allegations surfaced that the accused persons intercepted and assaulted the complainant’s relatives and opened fire using a country-made pistol. The prosecution relied upon CCTV footage, eyewitness statements, and the recovery of a pistol and live cartridge to allege active involvement of the accused in the attack.
Although the accused was initially granted regular bail by the High Court after rejection of anticipatory bail, the Apex Court later cancelled the relief after finding that relevant materials had been overlooked. Despite directions to surrender, the accused allegedly absconded, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and proceedings under Section 82 of the CrPC. After the Trial Court rejected the second bail application, the High Court again granted bail, prompting the informant to approach the Top Court challenging the legality of the second bail order.
Contentions of the Parties:
The Appellant argued that the High Court completely ignored the Apex Court’s earlier order cancelling bail and failed to record any fresh circumstances justifying a second grant of bail. It was submitted that the accused’s conduct after cancellation of bail was highly relevant since he had absconded despite clear surrender directions and compelled the Trial Court to initiate coercive proceedings. Reliance was also placed upon CCTV footage, eyewitness statements, and recovery of the weapon to contend that the accused had an active and specific role in the offence. The appellant further argued that the accused and co-accused were attempting to terrorise witnesses connected to the earlier murder case involving the appellant’s brother.
The State supported the appeal and contended that the prosecution material clearly established the accused’s involvement in offences under Section 307 of the IPC and the Arms Act. The Counsel argued that the CCTV footage, eyewitness testimonies, and recovery of the country-made pistol constituted strong prima facie evidence against the accused. The State further submitted that the High Court had passed an unreasoned order without considering the gravity of the allegations, the accused’s conduct while absconding, or the earlier findings of the Supreme Court cancelling bail.
On the other hand, the Respondent argued that he had not been formally declared a proclaimed offender and had surrendered before expiry of the statutory period under Section 82 of the CrPC. It was further contended that the CCTV footage did not conclusively establish firing by the accused and that no firearm injury had been caused to the victims. The Respondent also invoked the principle of parity by referring to bail granted to a co-accused and argued that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed, “While there is no absolute bar against a High Court granting bail to an accused whose bail was previously cancelled by this Court, the grant of bail must be supported by reasons demonstrating either a change in circumstances or the existence of fresh grounds not considered by this Court at the time of cancellation.”
“The first and most fundamental infirmity in the impugned order is the complete absence of any engagement with Page 15 of 22 the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 18256/2024, whereunder the first bail of the Respondent No. 2 was cancelled. The impugned order does not advert to the reasons that impelled this Court to cancel bail, nor does it identify any supervening circumstances or changed factual matrix that might justify a departure from the position adopted by this Court in the earlier round”, added the Bench.
The Court observed, “While there is no absolute bar against a High Court granting bail to an accused whose bail was previously cancelled by this Court, the grant of bail must be supported by reasons demonstrating either a change in circumstances or the existence of fresh grounds not considered by this Court at the time of cancellation.” The Bench held that the High Court failed to identify any supervening circumstance or fresh material justifying a departure from the earlier Supreme Court order cancelling bail. The Court further stressed that the conduct of the accused after cancellation of bail is a crucial consideration while deciding a fresh bail plea. Referring to the accused’s failure to surrender despite clear directions and the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of the CrPC, the Bench held that filing of a review petition did not automatically stay the surrender order and that such conduct reflected deliberate evasion of the judicial process.
The Bench further observed, “The CCTV evidence, the eyewitness accounts, the recovery of the weapon and cartridge at his instance collectively constitute a prima facie case against the Respondent No.2 which finds no reference in the impugned order passed by the High Court.” The Court noted that CCTV footage allegedly showed the accused retrieving and brandishing a country-made pistol shortly before gunshots were heard, while eyewitnesses specifically attributed the act of firing to him. Rejecting the High Court’s reasoning on the absence of firearm injuries, the Bench clarified that “The absence of firearm injuries does not negate the charge under Section 307 IPC,” reiterating that the attempt to murder depends upon the intention and knowledge behind the act rather than the actual result.
The Court observed, “This Court cannot be oblivious to the broader context in which the present crime was committed,” noting that the allegations indicated an attempt to terrorise witnesses connected to an earlier murder trial and force a compromise. Emphasising the importance of witness protection and fair administration of justice, the Bench held that liberty of the accused must be balanced against the threat posed to victims and witnesses. The Court ultimately concluded that, “An order that overlooks such crucial and weighty materials on record is perverse and cannot be sustained,” while criticising the High Court for ignoring the earlier Apex Court’s order, the accused’s conduct, CCTV evidence, recovery of the weapon, and rejection of the second bail application by the Trial Court.
The decision of the Court:
The Apex Court ultimately allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, and directed the Respondent to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith. The Court reiterated that a subsequent bail order passed after rejection or cancellation of earlier bail must specifically deal with changed circumstances, fresh grounds, and earlier judicial findings.
Case Title: Mohseen Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (CRL) No.16696 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Adv. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Adv. Alia Bano Zaidi, Adv. Usman Khan, Adv. Yashpal
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Vijendra Singh, AOR Kartikeya Bhargava, Adv. Vikesh Bansal, Adv. Ashwina Lakra, Adv. Apurva Singh
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
