Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Abhimanue Etc. Etc. – Appellants
VS.
State of Kerala – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 4197-4199 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 5814-5816 of 2025]
With
Vishnu Etc. – Appellants
VS.
State of Kerala & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 4200-4201 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 7641-7642 of 2025]
Decided On : 22-09-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Bail – Cancellation of – FIR under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against unknown persons – Cancellation of bail is distinct from revocation of an order granting bail – Bail may be cancelled when accused violates any of conditions imposed – On other hand, order granting bail can be revoked if such order is found to be perverse or illegal – Criminal antecedents of appellants by themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail – Cancellation/revocation of bail seeks to uphold trial integrity – Dominant purpose thereof is to ensure fair trial and protect societal interests by preventing persons accused of heinous or grave crime and having tendencies to influence or intimidate witnesses or to tamper evidence from being released – Appellants since grant of bail have not been involved in any similar or other offence – Impugned judgment and order revoking orders granting bail set aside. (Paras 17, 23, 24, 25 and 32)
Facts of the case:
Assailed in present set of appeals is judgment and order dated 11th December, 2024 of Kerala High Court, passed on a batch of petitions filed by State of Kerala praying for setting aside of grant of bail (through separate orders) to a total of 10 (ten) accused. Vide impugned order, High Court set aside orders granting bail to 5 of 10 accused, who are appellants before Court.
Findings of Court:
Appellants shall continue to remain on bail, pending trial, subject to adherence to terms and conditions for such grant as imposed by trial court, in addition to conditions imposed by Court. Should there be any breach of terms and conditions and same is brought to notice of trial court, appropriate orders may be passed including cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Supreme Court clarified that criminal antecedents of the appellants alone cannot serve as a ground for denying bail. The primary consideration for revoking or cancelling bail is to uphold trial integrity, ensure a fair trial, and protect societal interests, especially in cases involving heinous or grave crimes (!) .
The distinction between cancellation and revocation of bail is emphasized. Bail can be canceled if the accused breaches any conditions imposed at the time of grant, such as influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. Conversely, bail can be revoked if the order granting bail is found to be perverse or illegal. The decision to revoke bail should be based on supervening circumstances or misconduct after the grant of bail (!) (!) (!) .
In this case, the High Court set aside the bail granted to five accused persons after observing that the initial grant was made mechanically without considering all relevant factors, particularly the severity of the crime and the risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. The Court noted that the Sessions Court should have examined all pertinent considerations before granting bail (!) .
The Court held that the delay in filing an application for revocation of bail does not automatically disqualify such an application. The High Court was justified in exercising its inherent powers to review and revoke bail, especially given the serious nature of the allegations and the potential impact on the trial process (!) (!) .
The Court observed that, despite the gravity of the charges, the accused had not been involved in any similar offences since being granted bail, and the case was progressing with a scheduled trial involving numerous witnesses. Therefore, liberty should be favored over unnecessary detention, provided that stringent conditions are imposed to prevent tampering or influence (!) (!) .
To ensure trial fairness and prevent witness tampering, the Court imposed specific conditions on the appellants, including restrictions on entering the district, regular reporting to the police station, cooperation with the trial process, and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The trial court was also empowered to impose additional conditions as needed (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the role of bail is rooted in the principle that it is the rule, and detention is the exception. The decision to continue or revoke bail must balance individual liberty with societal and trial integrity concerns. The Court favored maintaining the appellants on bail with strict conditions rather than unnecessary incarceration, given the progress of the trial and the absence of misconduct by the appellants post-bail (!) (!) .
The impugned order revoking bail was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, with the appellants directed to adhere to the specified conditions during the trial process. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly (!) .
These points reflect the Court’s approach to balancing individual rights with the interests of justice, emphasizing procedural correctness, and the importance of imposing appropriate conditions to safeguard trial fairness.
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Assailed in the present set of appeals is the judgment and order dated 11th December, 2024 [impugned order] of the Kerala High Court, passed on a batch of petitions [Crl. M Nos. 4707, 4713, 4716, 4739, 4749, 4752, 4762, 4767 & 4798 of 2024] filed by the State of Kerala praying for setting aside of grant of bail (through separate orders) to a total of 10 (ten) accused. Vide the impugned order, the High Court set aside the orders granting bail to 5 (five) of the 10 (ten) accused, who are the appellants before us.
3. A First Information Report [FIR No. 621/2021, PS Mannanchery, District Alappuzha, Kerala] under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC], was registered on 19th December, 2021, against unknown persons. It was alleged therein that such unknown persons committed the said offences under the leadership of one political activist of a particular political organization (not a party to these proceedings). Soon thereafter, the appellants were arrested. As per the narrative in the police report (charge-sheet) filed under Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr. PC] dated 15th March, 2022, the accused are activists of a particular political organization who, allegedly, due to political enmity murdered the victim on 18th December, 2021. Accused 2-6 formed an unlawful assembly, followed the victim in a vehicle and collided with his scooter at 5:50 pm. The victim fell down whereupon he was brutally attacked; ultimately, he succumbed to his injuries at 11:30 pm. The accused were consequently charged with having committed offences under Sections 120-B, 109, 115, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302, IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. We note that the appellants Abhimanue, Athul, Sanand, Vishnu and Dhaneesh figure as A-3, A-5, A-4, A-2 and A-6, respectively, in the charge- sheet.
4. In December 2022, vide separate orders of various dates, after being in custody for nearly a year, the appellants and the co- accused were granted bail by the trial court. The State applied for cancellation of bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, who rejected the application on 5th April, 2024.
5. Next, the State approached the High Court in May 2024 praying for setting aside of the orders granting bail to the accused persons.
6. The High Court divided the accused into two categories – (i) conspirators and (ii) persons against whom the specific overt act of murder was alleged. The appellants belong to the second category. The High Court noted that bail was granted to the appellants by the Sessions Court in a mechanical manner, without referring to any “circumstance that should have been borne in mind while granting bail in a heinous crime as murder”. The High Court further noted that the Sessions Court granted bail, based on two factors. First, the accused had been in custody for more than a year, and secondly, there was no opposition from the Public Prosecutor. The possibility of influencing the witnesses or tampering with evidence was not borne in mind by the Sessions Court, whereas only a few weeks prior, their bail applications were rejected finding that they may influence the witnesses and tamper with evidence. The High Court found that there was no change of circumstances, and hence bail should not have been granted. The High Court also rejected the argument that bail should not be cancelled, as the applications praying for cancellation were filed more than a year and a half after the grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail granted in favour of the appellants stood set aside by the High Court.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order revoking grant of bail, the appellants have now carried it to this Court in appeal.
8. Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, submitted on behalf of the appellants that setting aside orders granting bail, on an application filed more than 18 (eighteen) months after such grant, was unjustified. Further, the appellants did not t
Bail – Criminal antecedents of appellants by themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail – Cancellation/revocation of bail seeks to uphold trial integrity.
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.
(1) Cancellation of bail – Under normal circumstances, application for cancellation of bail filed on merits as opposed to violation of conditions of bail order should be placed before same Single Jud....
The court has the authority to cancel bail if the order suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice, and if the accused misuses their liberty, interferes with the investigati....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of bail and the legal principles governing the cancellation of bail.
Bail – Liberty of an individual being a precious right under Constitution, Courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered.
(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 judgment emphasizes the importance of the district judiciary's independence in considering bail applications and highlights the appropriateness of the Trial Judge's exercise of discretion to gran....
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.
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
