Liberty Of An Individual Is A Precious Right: Supreme Court Cautions Against Arbitrary Bail Cancellation

The Supreme Court has set aside a High Court order canceling the bail of an accused charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder), emphasizing that an individual's liberty is a fundamental right under the Constitution and should not be interfered with lightly.

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan ruled that since there was no evidence indicating that the accused misused his bail, influenced witnesses, or tampered with evidence, the High Court had no valid reason to revoke the bail.

"Suffice to observe, liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered," the Bench observed.

Advocate Rajiv Rai appeared for the Petitioner and AAG Vaibhav Srivastava appeared for the Respondent.

High Court Erred in Cancelling Bail

The case involved an appellant who had been in jail for two years while facing trial under Section 307 IPC. Out of 43 prosecution witnesses, 17 had been examined when he was granted bail. However, the High Court later canceled the bail, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court cited its ruling in Ajwar v. Waseem and Anr., which laid down key factors for bail cancellation, including misuse of liberty, witness intimidation, evidence tampering, and delay tactics. The Court found that the High Court had not considered any of these elements.

"Instead, what the High Court did was to embark upon conducting sort of a mini-trial at the stage of considering whether the bail should be cancelled or not," the Bench observed.

The Bench further observed, "We are satisfied that there was no valid reason for the High Court to cancel the bail without there being any material to show, even prima facie, that conduct of the appellant post grant of bail has been such that he should be deprived of his liberty. There are also no allegations of influence being exerted or threat extended to the witnesses or of tampering the evidence. Material to demonstrate that dilatory tactics have been adopted to procrastinate the trial is alsoconspicuous by its absence."

Bail Restored, Conditions Imposed

The Court ruled that the High Court acted beyond its scope and unjustifiably canceled the bail. It restored the trial court’s bail order while clarifying that it had not examined the case’s merits. "We are of the considered opinion that the High Court was completely in error and unjustified in cancelling the bail of the appellant. The impugned judgment and order is, accordingly, set aside and the order dated 28th August, 2024 of the Sessions Court is restored. The appellant shall be released on bail, subject to the same terms and conditions as were imposed by the Sessions Court earlier," the Bench ordered.

Before concluding, the Court directed the appellant to appear before the trial court on scheduled dates, warning that failure to comply could result in the cancellation of his bail. With these observations, the appeal was allowed. "The appellant shall, however, appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless exempted; and should the appellant fail to appear on any date without justifiable cause or breach any of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail," the Bench directed.

The Bench further clarified, "The observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case."

Cause Title: Kailash Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 713/2025]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Rajiv Rai, Subhash Chandran K.R. (AOR), Krishna L R

Respondent: AAG Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocates Sugandha Anand (AOR), Amrinder Singh Rana, Vivek R. Mohanty, Ankit Anandraj Shah, Rahul Yadav, Vishwam Dwivedi

Click here to read/download the Order