The Supreme Court has enumerated guidelines governing the law of bail and also ruled that an appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal preferred by the complainant against the final judgment whereby the Respondent Accused came to be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 308, 325, 323, 341, 506, 188, 269, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said, “An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail.”

“The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail”, it added.

Factual Background

As per the charge sheet, the police investigation revealed that the accused and one of his associates abducted five people. All of them were taken to Chhatrasal Stadium, where they attacked them with wooden sticks, with the intention to kill them due to personal enmity. The Accused persons also fired gunshots, due to which a PCR call was received wherein the caller reported that two men fired gunshots near Chhatarsal Stadium.A ‘parna’ stained with blood was recovered from the registered vehicle of the Accused, one amongst five. The four other vehicles belonged to his associates, and upon a search of the said vehicles, a loaded double-barreled gun was found with 3 cartridges of live ammunition. Additionally, two wooden sticks were recovered.

One of the injured persons succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment. Thereafter, a charge under Section 302, IPC was also added against the Accused and his associates. Trial commenced against all the Accused. All other 21 accused persons, apart from the present Accused, continue to remain in custody with respect to the subject FIR.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, clarified that setting aside an order granting bail and cancellation of bail are two distinct concepts. While the former contemplates the correctness of the order itself, the latter pertains to the conduct of the Accused subsequent to the order granting bail.

Referring to various judgments, the Bech enumerated the following principles:

  • An appeal against the grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail.
  • The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail.
  • An order granting bail must reflect the application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for the grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court.
  • An appeal against the grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not being taken into consideration, including the gravity of the offence and impact of the crime.
  • However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant of bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail.
  • An appeal against the grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds discussed above.

The Bench was thus of the view that the High Court had erroneously passed an order releasing the Accused on bail. While considerations such as the period of custody and testimonies of key prosecution witnesses having been recorded are relevant, the Bench noted that the Court erred by not considering the grievous nature of the crime, the possibility of influencing the trial by the Accused and the conduct of the accused during investigation.

It was further noticed that after registration of the subject FIR against the Accused, he remained absconding and evaded arrest. This resulted in the passing of the Order by the Magistrate whereby non-bailable warrants had to be issued against him and his associates, securing their custody. Despite such warrants being issued, his whereabouts remained unknown. The Delhi Police, declared a cash reward for giving information about the accused as he was evading custody and remained absconding. “Despite a submission to this effect before the High Court, the above facts did not form part of the consideration of the order releasing him on bail. The High Court ought to have taken this relevant fact into its deliberation, while adjudicating the entitlement of the present Accused for regular bail”, it said.

Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. “Let the Accused/Respondent No. 2 surrender before the concerned Court within one week. It shall be open for the accused to apply afresh for bail, with a change in circumstances, before the appropriate Court, to be decided on its own merits”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 974)

Click here to read/download Judgment



Justice Sanjay KarolJustice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.