Detailed Appreciation Of Evidence Impermissible At Bail Stage: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that at the stage of considering a bail application, a detailed appreciation of the evidence is impermissible.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench order granting bail to the accused in a murder case involving offences under the SC/ST Act, holding that the High Court had erred in ascertaining the authenticity of medical evidence at the pre-trial stage.

“observation made by the High Court regarding the time gap between the date of the incident and the date of death of the deceased…is concerned, the said aspect would have to be gone into by the trial Court at the time of appreciating the medical evidence.”, the Court observed, while setting aside the impugned bail order.

Observing that “the order granting bail can be interfered with by the superior Court considering the nature and gravity of the offences; if the order granting bail ignores the relevant material available on record or that the same is based on extraneous considerations”, the bench held that the High Court erred in granting a bail to the accused persons, despite no justifiable grounds existed to grant bail to the accused persons.

“Once the High Court itself noted the multiple injuries on the body of the deceased with injury No. 8 causing deep rooted cerebral damage by blunt trauma, there was absolutely no justifiable reason to grant bail to the accused respondents.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order granting bail was set aside, with a direction to the accused persons to surrender within four weeks, and the trial court to complete the trial within one year.

Headnote

Criminal Law – Grant and Cancellation of Bail – Unlawful Assembly (Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC) – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Murder (Section 302 IPC) - Bail – Parameters for interference by Superior Court – Distinction between 'cancellation of bail' for misconduct and 'reversal' of an erroneous bail order – Supreme Court held that while cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC (Section 483(3) BNSS) typically involves the accused misusing liberty, a superior court can reverse a bail order if it ignores relevant material, is based on extraneous considerations, or fails to consider the gravity of the offence. [Para 20]

Unlawful Assembly – Individual Role Attribution – Noted that the High Court erred in granting bail on the ground that the individual role or specific injury caused by each accused could not be ascertained - The Supreme Court clarified that where an offence is committed by an unlawful assembly, every member is equally responsible for acts done in furtherance of the common object - Under Section 149 IPC, the prosecution is not obligated to identify the specific weapon or injury attributable to a particular member at the bail stage. [Paras 27 - 30]

Judicial Scrutiny of Bail Orders – Held that the High Court's decision to grant bail by dissecting medical evidence and questioning the "intent to kill" due to a gap between the assault and death (septicaemia) was found to be premature - Such detailed analysis is reserved for the trial - The presence of multiple injuries, including cerebral damage from blunt trauma, outweighed the "extraneous considerations" of pending civil litigation and lack of specific role attribution – Appeal allowed. [Relied on Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 320; Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025) 4 SCC 172; Victim 'XX' v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2025) INSC 877; Paras 21, 22, 29 - 31]

Cause Title: SHOBHA NAMDEV SONAVANE VERSUS SAMADHAN BAJIRAO SONVANE AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Priyanka Deshpande, Adv. Dr. R. R. Deshpande, AOR Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv. Ms. Vidya B.kothule, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.