A High Court granting bail after earlier cancellation of bail by the Supreme Court must demonstrate changed circumstances or fresh grounds; failure to consider prior cancellation, conduct of the accused, and material evidence renders the bail order perverse.

on

 Facts

The appellant challenged the Allahabad High Court’s order granting bail to Respondent No. 2, Jeeshan, in connection with offences under S.147, S.148, S.149, S.323, S.324, S.452, S.504, S.506, S.307 IPC and Ss.3, 25, 27 Arms Act.

The prosecution case arose against the backdrop of the murder of the appellant’s brother, in which certain co-accused persons had already been convicted. According to the prosecution, the accused persons repeatedly threatened the appellant’s family to compromise the murder case. During the incident in question, the accused intercepted the victims, assaulted them with weapons, chased them into their house, and Respondent No. 2 allegedly fired from the rooftop with a country-made pistol.

CCTV footage allegedly showed Respondent No. 2 retrieving a pistol, brandishing it, proceeding to a rooftop, and gunshots being heard thereafter. During investigation, Respondent No. 2 allegedly admitted firing multiple rounds and concealing the weapon. A pistol and cartridge were recovered at his instance.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had already cancelled the first bail granted to him on 27.01.2025. Despite directions to surrender, he absconded for about 42 days, compelling issuance of NBW and proceedings under S.82 CrPC. Nevertheless, the High Court again granted bail.

Issues Framed

Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to Respondent No. 2 despite earlier cancellation of bail by the Supreme Court and the material evidence on record.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Supreme Court held that the High Court completely failed to engage with the earlier order of the Supreme Court cancelling bail. A subsequent grant of bail after cancellation must be supported by “changed circumstances or fresh grounds.” (Paras 23–24)

(b) The Court observed that the accused’s conduct after cancellation of bail was highly relevant. Despite a direction to surrender forthwith, Respondent No. 2 absconded, compelling issuance of NBW and initiation of proceedings under S.82 CrPC. The plea that a review petition justified non-surrender was rejected since filing a review does not automatically stay the original order. (Paras 25–27)

(c) The Court found that the CCTV footage, eyewitness statements, recovery of the weapon, and the accused’s own statement before the Investigating Officer collectively established a strong prima facie case. (Para 28)

(d) The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that absence of firearm injuries weakened the prosecution case under S.307 IPC. The Court held that if firing is done with intent or knowledge capable of causing death, the offence under S.307 IPC is made out even if no injury is caused because the victims escaped by chance. (Para 29)

(e) On parity, the Court held that the principle cannot be mechanically applied. Respondent No. 2 had a distinct role involving firing from a pistol and recovery of the weapon at his instance. Reliance was placed on Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.. (Para 30)

(f) The Court further emphasised the broader context — namely, intimidation of witnesses in a murder case. Referring to Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that courts must consider threats posed to victims and witnesses if accused persons are enlarged on bail. (Paras 31–32)

(g) Relying on Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, the Court held that bail orders must be reasoned and must engage with material circumstances such as gravity of offence, likelihood of absconding, witness intimidation, and prima facie evidence. (Paras 33–34)

Held

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail and cancelled the bail of Respondent No. 2. He was directed to surrender forthwith, failing which coercive steps including NBW were directed.

Ratio

Where bail earlier granted by the Supreme Court has been cancelled, a subsequent grant of bail must disclose changed circumstances or fresh grounds; failure to consider prior cancellation, conduct of absconding, and material evidence renders the bail order perverse and liable to be set aside. (Paras 23–34)

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 526
Decided on: 22 May 2026
Case Title: Mohseen v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.