Order Granting Bail In Second Round Must Record Change In Circumstances Or Fresh Grounds : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that, upon rejection of an earlier bail application, the failure to record the existence of the fresh grounds while hearing the subsequent bail application would render the bail order liable to be interfered with.

“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.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to an accused in an attempt to murder along with Arms Act case, where the High Court overlooked the fact regarding the rejection of his earlier bail by the trial court in an order granting a bail, moreover, nothing was brought on record to justify the grant of bail based on the change in circumstances or emergence of any fresh grounds.

The Court said that mere recitation of “the facts and circumstances of the case” without revealing the factors that weighed with the Court for granting relief does not constitute a reasoned order. [See Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118]

“An order that overlooks such crucial and weighty materials on record is perverse and cannot be sustained and is liable to be interfered with…”, observed the court.

“the impugned order fails to engage with: (i) the order of this Court dated 27.01.2025 in the first round; (ii) the conduct of the Respondent No. 2 in absconding and threatening witnesses post bail-cancellation; (iii) the CCTV evidence and the recovery of the country-made pistol at the instance of the Respondent No. 2; and (iv) the rejection of the second bail application by the Trial Court.”, the Court noted, stating that the High Court erred in ignoring the vital materials placed on record by the prosecution, which prima facie shows his involvement in the crime.

Further, the Court cited Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, where the Supreme Court laid down the principles guiding the assessment of correctness of an order granting or rejecting bail:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the Respondent No.2 was directed to surrender.

A few days back, the Court in Vasantha versus State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 520 set aside the Madras High Court's order granting an anticipatory bail, noting that the High Court failed to record that the earlier dismissal of the pleas, along with the material change in circumstances, did not warrant the exercise of the discretion in the accused's favour.

Headnote

Grant and Cancellation of Bail – Successive Bail Application – Conduct of Accused and Parity - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437/439 (corresponding to Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) – Grant of bail by High Court in a successive application after cancellation by the Supreme Court – Sustainability - An order granting bail that fails to engage with the prior bail-cancellation order of the Supreme Court, overlooks the contumacious conduct of the accused in absconding post-cancellation, ignores prima facie incriminating material (such as CCTV footage and recovery of weapons), and blindly applies the principle of parity despite distinct criminal roles, suffers from manifest error of law and perversity. [Paras 22-34]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 82 – Delay in Surrendering after Bail Cancellation – Effect of Pending Review Petition - The filing of a Review Petition before the Supreme Court does not operate as an automatic stay of a surrender direction - Evading arrest for 42 days, necessitating the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) and initiation of proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC, constitutes contumacious conduct that heavily weighs against the fresh grant of bail. [Para 26-27]

Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 (corresponding to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) – Attempt to Murder – Absence of Firearm Injury - The mere absence of firearm injuries does not negate a charge under Section 307 IPC - The essential ingredient is the act being done with the requisite intent or knowledge that it could cause death; if the victims escape by chance, the offence is complete - The principle of parity is not an inflexible rule and cannot be mechanically applied by courts when the roles attributed to the accused persons are materially different and distinct. [Relied on Ajwar v. Waseem & Anr., (2024) 10 SCC 768; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508; Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2021) 4 SCC 781; Para 29-32]

Cause Title: MOHSEEN VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 536

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Pulkit Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Md Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Adv. Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Alia Bano Zaidi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Vikesh Bansal, Adv. Ms. Ashwina Lakra, Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh , AOR Mr. Kartikeya Bhargava, AOR