Grant Of Bail In Serious Offences Like Murder Must Record Justifiable Reasons : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently set aside the bail granted to the two accused persons in a murder case, noting that the bail order was a result of a non-application of mind, as the Courts below ignored the vital evidence which prima facie showed the involvement of the accused in the crime.

“The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from nonapplication of mind.”, the Court quoted in approval of its 2004 judgment of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan.

Referring to various precedents, the Court noted that "in serious offences like murder, the order granting bail must reflect proper application of mind to the facts of the case and justifiable reasons have to be recorded before bail is granted to such an accused." 

Reference was made to Shabeen Ahmed v State of UP 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278 on the princples for grant and cancellation of bail. "The reasons assigned by the High Court for granting bail are flimsy and untenable in the eyes of law," the Court noted.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the State of Maharashtra's appeal against the grant of bail to two accused persons in a murder case. As per the allegations, the deceased-complainant stated that at around 10:22 PM, his wife called him informing that four individuals, including accused No. 1 and three unidentified accomplices, had arrived at their residence demanding that their son Prajwal apologize for a dispute during his wedding. They were violently kicking the door and threatening not to spare the family.

When the deceased-complainant arrived home, the assailants approached him, assaulted him with kicks and punches, and threatened to kill him. Accused No. 1 then retrieved a can of petrol from the vehicle, poured it over the deceased-complainant's body while his three accomplices held him down, and set him on fire using a matchstick. The deceased-complainant was rushed to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries.

The case arose after the grant of bail to accused no.4. Based on the principle of parity with accused no.4, accused no. 3 was also granted bail. Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to uphold the grant of bail to them, the State moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta noted that the High Court and trial court erred in granting bail to the two accused persons, ignoring the grave and significant circumstances against them,  [See Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 797]

"The High Court and the learned trial Court completely ignored the preceding facts where all the four accused persons continuously attacked the house of the complainant party threatening that they would not spare the complainant party in case Prajwal failed to apologize."

“The fact that the accused persons were prepared well in advance to commit some grave offence is prima facie borne out from the fact that the can containing petrol was carried in the vehicle in which all four accused persons had arrived at the crime scene. The time of the incident, the prior preparation of the accused persons to commit the crime and the repeated threats extended to the complainant party constitute significant and grave circumstances, which, when considered cumulatively, indicate the premeditated nature of the ghastly attack in which an innocent human being was burnt alive by pouring inflammable fluid on his body.”, the Court observed, pointing out that relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime.

As a result thereof, the State's appeal was allowed, thereby setting aside the bail granted to two accused persons, namely Pruthviraj Rajendra Shinde and Jyotiraditya Ajitsinh Jadhav.

“…the Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 11037 of 2026 and 11039 of 2026 preferred by the appellant-State of Maharashtra are accordingly allowed and order dated 12th November, 2025 passed by the High Court granting bail to accused No. 4-Jyotiraditya and order dated 13th January, 2026 passed by the learned trial Court granting bail to accused No. 3-Pruthviraj, are hereby set aside. The bail granted to these accused persons is cancelled. They shall surrender within a period of three weeks from today, failing which the learned trial Court shall take appropriate steps to arrest these accused persons and bring them to trial.”, the Court ordered.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 307, 323, 109, 504, 506 read with Section 34 — Grant and Cancellation of Regular Bail — Serious and Heinous Offences — Exercise of Discretionary Jurisdiction — Parameters and Duty to Assign Reasons - Discretion to grant bail in serious and non-bailable offences such as murder must be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course - An order granting bail in grave crimes must reflect proper application of mind to the facts and material on record and must record justifiable, cogent reasons - An unreasoned, superficial, or perverse order of bail warrants interference and reversal by the appellate court - Where a bail order is devoid of reasons or assigns flimsy and untenable grounds, ignoring material circumstances regarding the gravity of the offence, premeditation, concerted action, and the specific role of the accused, the superior court is fully empowered to cancel the bail. [Paras 32–37]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 — Premeditated Murder by Setting Victim Ablaze — Common Intention — Bail Erroneously Granted on Flimsy Grounds — Cancellation of Bail - In a case where four accused persons launched a sustained offensive at night upon the complainant's house demanding an apology from his son, arrived together in a four-wheeler carrying a can of petrol, restrained and assaulted the victim, and set him on fire by pouring petrol and throwing a lit matchstick, the High Court and Trial Court erred in granting regular bail to Accused No. 4 (who recorded the incident) and Accused No. 3 (on grounds of parity) - The facts prima facie demonstrated prior preparation, concerted action, and premeditated common intention under Section 34 IPC to inflict grave harm - The reasoning of the High Court that Accused No. 4 merely recorded the incident and had no antecedents was flimsy and untenable in law - regular bail granted to Accused Nos. 3 and 4 cancelled; rejection of bail to Accused No. 2 (who drove the vehicle and acted as lookout) upheld. [Paras 29- 40]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 — Distinction Between Main Assailants Present at Spot and Conspirator Not Present — Circumstantial Evidence — Grant of Bail Affirmed - Where the co-accused (father of the prime accused) was admittedly not present at the spot when the fatal attack occurred and was implicated solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence of conspiracy and providing petrol under Section 109 IPC, his case stands on a materially different footing - Order of the High Court granting him regular bail affirmed. [Relied on Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana & Anr., (2021) 6 SCC 230; Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 172; Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129; Paras 26-40]

Cause Title: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PRUTHVIRAJ RAJENDRA SHINDE & ANR. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 856

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Risvi Muhammed, Adv. Ms. Vishnu Priya, Adv. Mrs. Maneesha R., Adv Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR Ms. Damini Vishwakarma, Adv. Mr. B Dhananjay, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.

Related: Supreme Court Summarises Principles Regarding Appeals Against Grant Of Bail