High Court Cannot Grant Fresh Bail After Supreme Court Cancels Bail Without Showing Change In Circumstances: Supreme Court
The Court held that a subsequent bail order passed after cancellation of bail by the Apex Court must independently disclose fresh circumstances justifying such exercise of jurisdiction.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot grant fresh bail to an accused whose earlier bail was cancelled by the Supreme Court unless the subsequent bail order discloses a material change in circumstances or fresh grounds which were not considered at the time of cancellation of bail.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the informant challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The accused had earlier been granted bail by the High Court, which was subsequently cancelled by the Supreme Court in January 2025.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh while stating that the fundamental infirmity in the impugned order granting bail, passed by the High Court, was “the complete absence of any engagement with the order passed by this Court” and that it did “not advert to the reasons that impelled this Court to cancel bail", nor did it "identify any supervening circumstances or changed factual matrix.”
The Court further 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.”
Advocate Md. Anas Chaudhary appeared for the Appellant. Advocate Dr Vijendra Singh, AOR, and Vikesh Bansal appeared for the respondents.
Background
The prosecution's case arose out of a violent incident allegedly connected with an earlier murder case involving the appellant’s brother. According to the prosecution, the accused persons had earlier threatened the appellant and his family members to compromise the murder case pending against certain co-accused persons.
Thereafter, another incident allegedly occurred in May 2024 when the accused persons intercepted the appellant’s relatives, assaulted them with lathis, knives and a country-made pistol and allegedly chased them into their residence while threatening them to withdraw the murder case.
The prosecution relied upon CCTV footage allegedly showing the accused arriving on a motorcycle, retrieving a pistol from his house, proceeding to the roof of an adjoining building and thereafter gunshots being heard. Multiple eyewitnesses also allegedly attributed the firing to the accused.
The investigation further resulted in the recovery of a .315 bore pistol and a live cartridge, allegedly at the instance of the accused.
The accused initially sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the High Court in September 2024 after finding that a prima facie case existed against him.
Subsequently, after arrest, the accused was granted regular bail by the High Court in October 2024 on the ground that only a vague and general role had been attributed to him.
The Supreme Court, however, cancelled that bail in January 2025 after holding that the High Court had ignored the specific role assigned to the accused and had failed to consider the Trial Court’s findings rejecting bail.
Despite the cancellation of bail, the accused allegedly failed to surrender immediately, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and the initiation of proceedings under Section 82 CrPC before he eventually surrendered after approximately 42 days.
Thereafter, the accused again sought bail before the High Court, which was granted in September 2025 principally on grounds including delay in lodging FIR, absence of firearm injuries and parity with a co-accused who had already been enlarged on bail.
The informant challenged the said order before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court held that the principal defect in the impugned bail order was the complete failure of the High Court to engage with the earlier order of the Supreme Court cancelling bail.
The Court observed that once bail had been cancelled by the Supreme Court through a reasoned order, the High Court could not grant fresh bail without recording reasons demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances or the emergence of new grounds.
The Court also underscored that the impugned bail order overlooked crucial factors, including the conduct of the accused in absconding after cancellation of bail, the CCTV footage allegedly showing his involvement in the incident, recovery of a country-made pistol at his instance, and the likelihood of intimidation of witnesses connected with a prior murder case.
The Supreme Court placed significant emphasis on the conduct of the accused after the cancellation of bail. The Court noted that despite being directed to surrender forthwith by the Supreme Court, the accused failed to comply, compelling the issuance of non-bailable warrants and initiation of proceedings under Section 82 CrPC.
Rejecting the contention that the delay in surrender was due to the filing of a review petition, the Court observed: “The filing of a Review Petition does not operate as an automatic stay upon the original order. This Court by order dated 27.01.2025 directed immediate surrender, and the Respondent No. 2 was bound to comply with the direction forthwith.”
The Court held that such conduct was a relevant circumstance while considering whether fresh bail should be granted.
The Supreme Court also observed that the CCTV footage, eyewitness accounts and recovery of the weapon collectively established a prima facie case against the accused. The Court noted that the CCTV footage allegedly showed the accused retrieving a pistol, waving it on the road, proceeding to a rooftop and thereafter gunshots being heard.
The Bench 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 further held that the absence of firearm injuries does not negate an offence under Section 307 IPC if firing was done with intention or knowledge capable of causing death.
The Supreme Court also rejected the High Court’s reliance upon parity with a co-accused. The Court noted that the role attributed to the co-accused was materially different from that assigned to the respondent, against whom a specific allegation of firing with a country-made pistol existed.
The Bench further observed that recovery of the pistol and addition of Arms Act offences distinguished the respondent’s case from that of the co-accused.
Relying upon Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014), the Court reiterated that parity in bail is not an inflexible principle and cannot be mechanically applied where the roles of accused persons materially differ.
The Court further reiterated the settled principles governing the grant of bail and referred to Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020), Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010), Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) and Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021).
The Court observed that bail orders must demonstrate proper application of mind to relevant material, including the gravity of the offence, the possibility of absconding, the likelihood of witness intimidation and prima facie evidence.
The Bench concluded that “an order that overlooks such crucial and weighty materials on record is perverse and cannot be sustained.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the impugned bail order suffered from a manifest error of law and ignored material circumstances relevant to the grant of bail.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court and cancelled the bail granted to the accused.
The Court further directed the accused to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith and directed the issuance of coercive steps, including non-bailable warrants, in the event of non-compliance.
Cause Title: Mohseen v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 526)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocates Md. Anas Chaudhary, Shehla Chaudhary, Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Alia Bano Zaidi, Usman Khan and Yashpal; Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR.
Respondents: Dr Vijendra Singh, AOR, with Advocates Vikesh Bansal, Ashwina Lakra and Apurva Singh; Kartikeya Bhargava, AOR.