Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Ashok Dhankad – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi And Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3495 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5370 of 2025)
Decided On : 13-08-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439] – Grant of bail – Parameters – Grant of bail constitutes discretionary judicial remedy that necessitates delicate and context-sensitive balancing of competing legal and societal interests – On one hand lies imperative to uphold personal liberty of accused -an entrenched constitutional value reinforced by presumption of innocence, which remains cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence – On other hand, court must remain equally mindful of gravity of alleged offence, broader societal implications of accused's release, and need to preserve integrity and fairness of investigative and trial processes – While liberty is sacrosanct, it cannot be construed in a manner that dilutes seriousness of heinous or grave offences or undermines public confidence in administration of justice – Exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters must be informed by calibrated assessment of nature and seriousness of charge, strength of prima facie case, likelihood of accused fleeing justice or tampering with evidence or witnesses, and overarching interest of ensuring that trial proceeds without obstruction or prejudice. (Para 2)
(B) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439] – Grant of bail – FIR under Sections 308, 325, 323, 341, 506, 188, 269, 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, 1959 – Setting aside order granting bail and cancellation of bail are two distinct concepts – While former contemplates correctness of order itself, latter pertains to conduct of Accused subsequent to order granting bail – Appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on same footing as application for cancellation of bail – High Court has erroneously passed an order releasing Accused on bail – While considerations such as period of custody and testimonies of key prosecution witnesses are relevant, Court errored by not considering grievous nature of crime, possibility of influencing trial by Accused and conduct of accused during investigation – After registration of FIR, Accused remained absconding and evaded arrest – Accused persons, allegedly abducted certain individuals; violently attacked them with dangerous weapons; and caused grievous injuries which resulted in unfortunate death of Complainant’s son – Loaded firearm was recovered from vehicle of these persons – Accused carries societal impact – Certain witnesses had lodged complaints, apprehending threat to their lives at behest of Accused – Order granting bail set aside. (Paras 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal has been preferred by complainant against final judgment and order dated 4th March 2025 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 2654/2024 whereby Respondent No. 2, Sushil Kumar came to be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 218/2021 under Sections 308, 325, 323, 341, 506, 188, 269, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, 1959.
Findings of Court:
Allegations of pressurizing witnesses have been made, before order granting bail was passed. Certain witnesses had, in writing lodged complaints, apprehending threat to their lives at behest of Accused.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The grant of bail is a discretionary judicial remedy that requires careful and context-sensitive balancing of legal and societal interests. While personal liberty is fundamental, it cannot be extended in a manner that diminishes the seriousness of grave offenses or undermines public confidence in the justice system (!) .
Setting aside an order granting bail and canceling bail are two distinct legal concepts. The former pertains to the correctness of the original order, whereas the latter concerns the conduct of the accused after bail has been granted. An appeal against bail does not equate to an application for its cancellation, and each must be considered separately (!) (!) (!) .
When considering bail, courts must evaluate relevant factors such as the nature and gravity of the offense, the strength of the prima facie case, the likelihood of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence, and the overall impact on the trial's fairness. The order must reflect a proper application of these considerations (!) (!) .
The conduct of the accused after bail has been granted, including any misconduct or attempts to influence witnesses, is a critical factor in subsequent proceedings, especially when considering cancellation of bail. Supervening circumstances, such as threats to witnesses or interference with evidence, can justify revoking bail (!) (!) .
In cases involving serious allegations, such as violent crimes causing grievous injuries or death, and where weapons or evidence of violence are recovered, courts should exercise caution before granting bail. The gravity of the offense and potential societal impact weigh heavily against bail in such circumstances (!) (!) (!) .
The societal influence of the accused, especially when they hold a prominent or influential position, can impact witnesses or the trial process. Allegations of pressurizing witnesses and the pattern of witnesses turning hostile further support the need for cautious bail considerations (!) (!) .
The order granting bail must be based on a thorough consideration of all relevant factors, including the accused’s conduct during investigation and the seriousness of the offense. Orders that overlook these aspects may be deemed improper and subject to review or reversal (!) .
The decision to grant or revoke bail should not be based solely on superficial or irrelevant considerations. It must be grounded in a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances, ensuring that the principles of justice and public confidence are maintained (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the accused should surrender within a specified period if bail is revoked, and they are entitled to reapply for bail in the future if circumstances change (!) .
Overall, the court set aside the bail order and directed the accused to surrender, highlighting the importance of considering the gravity of the offense, conduct during investigation, and societal impact when granting or revoking bail (!) .
If you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points, please let me know.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Karol, J.
Leave granted.
2. The grant of bail constitutes a discretionary judicial remedy that necessitates a delicate and context-sensitive balancing of competing legal and societal interests. On one hand lies the imperative to uphold the personal liberty of the accused -an entrenched constitutional value reinforced by the presumption of innocence, which remains a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. On the other hand, the court must remain equally mindful of the gravity of the alleged offence, the broader societal implications of the accused's release, and the need to preserve the integrity and fairness of the investigative and trial processes. While liberty is sacrosanct, particularly in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, it cannot be construed in a manner that dilutes the seriousness of heinous or grave offences or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice. The exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters, therefore, must be informed by a calibrated assessment of the nature and seriousness of the charge, the strength of the prima facie case, the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice or tampering with evidence or witnesses, and the overarching interest of ensuring that the trial proceeds without obstruction or prejudice.
3. The case at hand is one such case, where this Court has been called upon to ensure the above-mentioned balance. The present Appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the final judgment and order dated 4th March 2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 2654/2024 whereby Respondent No. 2, Sushil Kumar (hereinafter the ‘Accused’) came to be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 218/2021 under Sections 308, 325, 323, 341, 506, 188, 269, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) and Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. At the outset, we would be well served to remind ourselves of the observations made by three learned judges of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42 which are as follows:
“18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non- bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non- bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so…”
[See also: Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Vinod Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 11 SCC 502]
Prosecution case against the Accused
5. As per the charge sheet, police investigation revealed that on the intervening night of 4th - 5th May 2021, the Accused and his associates abducted one Mr. Ravindra @ Bhinda and Mr. Amit @ Khagad from Shalimar Bagh and Mr. Sagar, Mr. Jai Bhagwan @ Sonu and Mr. Bhagat @ Bhagtu from Model Town, New Delhi. All of them were taken to Chhatrasal Stadium, where they attacked them with wooden lathis and sticks, with an 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
(1) Grant of bail – While liberty is sacrosanct, it cannot be construed in a manner that dilutes seriousness of heinous or grave offences or undermines public confidence in administration of justice.....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of bail and the legal principles governing the cancellation of bail.
Bail should not be cancelled mechanically; serious allegations and proper reasoning are essential for cancellation, and the learned Trial Court's discretion must be respected unless perverse.
Bail – Criminal antecedents of appellants by themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail – Cancellation/revocation of bail seeks to uphold trial integrity.
While considering an application for bail, all the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvem....
The court underscored that bail decisions must weigh the seriousness of charges and potential witness tampering, emphasizing that casual orders lacking reasoning undermine judicial standards.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption of innocence, grant of bail as a general rule, and deprivation of personal liberty must be considered as punishment. The court....
(1) Bail – For grant or denial of bail, nature of crime has huge relevancy – Importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined.(2) Cancellation of bail – Bail once....
Bail once granted should not be cancelled without cogent reasons and must consider supervening circumstances.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
