The appellate court emphasized that bail decisions must adhere to established legal principles and prior rulings, ensuring that serious offenses are appropriately adjudicated.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel/senior counsel for the parties.

2. I.A. No.156017/2025 seeking permission to file the Special Leave Petition is allowed. I.A. Nos.156019/2025, 156023/2025, 167425/2025, 176616/2025 and 176617/2025 be treated as having been formally allowed.

3. Leave granted.

FACTUAL PRISM:

4. The present appeal arises from the Impugned Order dated 03.06.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10572/2025 [2025:AHC:94655] passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granting bail to respondent no.1-accused.

5. A few basic facts are to be noted before this Court examines the merits.

6. Respondent no.1 is an accused in a case filed by the appellant- informant under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 352, 302, 307, 504 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860. Initially, when bail was granted to respondent no.1 by the High Court on 22.08.2022 [ Waseem v State of Uttar Pradesh , 2022 SCC OnLine All 1518], the appellant moved before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1784/2022, in which the Order granting bail was interfered with by this Court vide Order dated 14.10.2022 [ Ajwar v Waseem , (2024) 10 SCC 787] and the matter was remanded to the High Court. This led to the second round and respondent no.1 pursued his prayer for bail in the High Court. The High Court vide Order dated 07.12.2022 [ Waseem v State of Uttar Pradesh , 2022 SCC OnLine All 1510] once again granted bail to respondent no.1.

Once more, the appellant moved this Court seeking cancellation of bail, which was allowed vide Judgment dated 17.05.2024 [ Ajwar v Waseem , (2024) 10 SCC 768] (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Judgment dated 17.05.2024’). The Judgment dated 17.05.2024 dealt with all the connected cases, and therein, while interfering with the bail granted to respondent no.1 and the others, this Court granted a window to the respondents-accused to move for bail afresh, observing:

‘35. … It is also clarified that in the event of any new circumstances emerging, the respondents shall be entitled to apply for bail at a later stage.’

7. This observation led respondent no.1 to apply for bail afresh before the learned Trial Court, which was rejected on 20.01.2025. He then moved the High Court in April, 2025, and by way of the Impugned Order, bail was granted.

APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Impugned Order not only suffers from material irregularities but also violates the tenor and spirit of the Judgment of this Court by which the bail granted to respondent no.1 was cancelled. It was submitted that the Court, while cancelling the bail of respondent no.1, had dealt with each and every aspect of the matter on merits and, for all practical purposes, on the day of such cancellation, whatever ground which may have been available to respondent no.1 was closed and the ‘new circumstances emerging’ could only be prospective in nature. It was submitted that the Trial Court, thus, had correctly appreciated the position and rejected the prayer for bail; whereas, the High Court has approached the matter in a manner which would reveal that the High Court thought that it was considering the application for bail for the first time and delved into all those aspects which had already been dealt with at the time of cancellation of bail by this Court. It was submitted that the so-called ground before the Hi