Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1360

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman – Applicant
Versus
The State Of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application 2323 of 2025 Diary No.44979 of 2025 With Interlocutory Application Nos.197604 of 2025 & 227763 of 2025 In Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2025
With
Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat Sha – Applicant
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application Diary No.55130 of 2025 With Interlocutory Application No.244053 of 2025 In Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2025
Decided On : 26-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv. Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumya Nag, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Mr. T.illayarasu, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Guha, Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Binding Precedent – Pronouncement of a verdict by a Bench on a particular issue of law (arising out of facts involved) should settle the controversy, being final, and has to be followed by all courts as law declared by Supreme Court – It is fundamental to rule of law to maintain sanctity and finality of judicial verdicts.
(2) Strength of judicial power lies less in hope of perfection and more in confidence that decisions, once made, are settled.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Bail – Application for cancellation and/or modification of conditions of bail – Case registered under Sections 302/120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 – Despite being granted bail accused was dissatisfied with condition that restricted his movements – Application for cancellation of bail at instance of brother of victim seems to be more of a retaliatory response to application by accused for modification of bail condition rather than a genuine effort to further project before this Court how accused has breached terms and conditions of bail – Anxiety and concern of brother of victim is understandable – Having lost his brother in a homicidal attack, it is quite but natural that regardless of State’s effort to scuttle trial he would sincerely and earnestly wish to have culprits brought to book – Witnesses for prosecution have turned hostile, but that accused is directly responsible for damage caused has not been conclusively established before Court – Application for cancellation of bail rejected – It is fundamental to rule of law to maintain sanctity and finality of judicial verdicts – Very purpose of order granting bail, in this case, would stand frustrated if condition requiring appellant not to leave Kolkata were modified – Application for modification of bail condition rejected. (Paras 42, 43, 47, 50 and 52)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 141 – Binding Precedent – Pronouncement of a verdict by a Bench on a particular issue of law (arising out of facts involved) should settle the controversy, being final, and has to be followed by all courts as law declared by Supreme Court – However, if a verdict is allowed to be reopened because a later different view appears to be better, very purpose of enacting Article 141 would stand defeated – Prospect of opening up a further round of challenge before a succeeding Bench, hoping that a change in composition will yield a different outcome, would undermine Supreme Court’s authority and value of its pronouncements – Matter that is res integra may not be reopened or revisited or else consistency in legal interpretation could be compromised and special authority that is invested in decisions of Supreme Court, under Article 141, lost – Strength of judicial power lies less in hope of perfection and more in confidence that decisions, once made, are settled – By upholding finality of verdicts, not only is endless litigation prevented but public confidence in Judiciary is also maintained. (Paras 47 and 48)
(C) Judicial Decorum – Adverse Remarks – If indeed prosecution, for ensuring fair trial for victim as well as accused, felt that it was essential to apply for permission to have witnesses re-examined/examined, such application was not one which necessitated scathing remarks to be made against Special Public Prosecutor – To characterize approach of Special Public Prosecutor as torpid and indifferent amounts to unjustly criticizing him for lack of initiative – Sessions Court ought to have been alive to the situation that predecessor in office of Special Public Prosecutor was tardy, lethargic, indolent and unenthusiastic for which current initiative of Special Public Prosecutor was necessary for a fair, effective and meaningful trial – Sessions Court ought not to forget status of a Prosecutor, who has been appointed pursuant to order of Supreme Court – Special Public Prosecutor has been unfairly criticized by Sessions Court in its hurried attempt to conclude trial without realizing seriousness and magnitude of situation. (Para 64)
Facts of the case:
Basic facts, relevant for disposal of application for cancellation of bail (I.A. No.244053/2025) and the application for modification of one of the conditions for bail (I.A. No.197604/2025) along with an application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.227763/2025) in presentation of such application for modification, are admitted.
Findings of Court:
Fact that the application of the prosecution has been partly allowed does suggest that the Sessions Court did not consider the attempt of the prosecution to be part of any dilatory tactics to unduly prolong the trial. Having regard thereto, the order is contradictory in the sense that on the one hand the application is partly allowed and, on the other, the Special Public Prosecutor is criticized for lack of vigilance and circumspection.
Result : Applications dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

Finality of Supreme Court Verdicts:
A verdict pronounced by a Bench on a specific issue of law, arising from the facts involved, should be considered final and binding on all courts. Reopening or revisiting such verdicts without substantial reasons undermines the authority of the Supreme Court and the principle of finality in judicial decisions, thereby affecting public confidence in the judiciary (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Importance of Judicial Discipline and Decorum:
The Court emphasizes that judicial decorum must be maintained, especially in cases involving adverse remarks against prosecutors or other judicial officers. Criticisms should be justified, and undue remarks, particularly those unjustly criticizing prosecutors or other officials, are unwarranted and can undermine the integrity of the judicial process (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Finality and Consistency in Legal Interpretation:
The doctrine of finality serves to prevent endless litigation and uphold the credibility of judicial pronouncements. Reopening settled issues or verdicts solely due to the emergence of a different perspective is discouraged, as it can erode the authority and consistency of the Court’s decisions under Article 141 (!) (!) .
Balancing Rights and Public Confidence:
While the right to liberty under Article 21 is fundamental, it must be balanced against the interests of justice, witness protection, and public confidence. Orders such as bail conditions are justified based on the circumstances, including the stage of trial, threat perception, and the need to ensure a fair trial (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Role of the Court in Ensuring Fair Trials:
The Court underscores that the trial process must be fair, effective, and conducted with diligence. Orders and directions are aimed at expediting proceedings while safeguarding the rights of all parties, including witnesses’ safety and the integrity of evidence (!) (!) (!) .
Respect for Judicial Orders and Finality:
Judicial orders, especially those related to bail, transfer, or procedural directions, should be respected and followed. Modifications or cancellations are to be made only in exceptional circumstances, and subsequent benches should generally uphold earlier orders unless gross errors are evident (!) (!) (!) .
Judicial Hierarchy and Authority:
The Court highlights the importance of respecting the hierarchical authority of judgments and the need for subsequent benches to defer to earlier decisions unless there are compelling reasons to revisit them. This preserves the integrity of judicial pronouncements and maintains public trust (!) (!) .
Conduct of Prosecutors and Judicial Officers:
Prosecutors and judicial officers are expected to perform their duties with integrity, diligence, and impartiality. Criticisms or remarks against them should be based on substantive grounds, and unwarranted comments are discouraged to uphold the dignity of the judicial process (!) (!) (!) .
Trial Management and Expeditious Proceedings:
The Court emphasizes the importance of managing trials effectively, including scheduling witness examinations and avoiding unnecessary delays. Orders for expeditious conclusion aim to balance the rights of the accused with the need for a fair and timely trial (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Preservation of Fundamental Rights and Public Interest:
While safeguarding individual rights, the Court recognizes the importance of maintaining public confidence, especially in cases involving serious offences, witness protection, and the integrity of the prosecution process. Orders restricting movement or bail conditions are justified based on the circumstances and stage of proceedings (!) (!) .

These points reflect the Court’s overarching principles regarding the finality of judgments, judicial decorum, procedural integrity, and the balance between individual rights and public interest, as derived from the detailed case analysis.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

FACTS

1. The basic facts, relevant for disposal of the application for cancellation of bail (I.A. No.244053/2025) and the application for modification of one of the conditions for bail (I.A. No.197604/2025) along with an application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.227763/2025) in presentation of such application for modification, which we propose to dispose of by this common order, are not in dispute.

2. SK. Md. Anisur Rahaman¹[Anisur] along with several co-accused is facing trial, inter alia, for the offence of murder. By an order of this Court dated 3rd January, 2025, Anisur has been granted bail. While Anisur seeks modification of the condition that requires him to remain confined to the city of Kolkata after his release on bail, Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat Sha²[Afjal] (brother of Kurban Sha³[the victim]) seeks cancellation of bail granted to Anisur on the grounds urged in the application for cancellation.

3. Panskura P.S. Case No.496 of 2019 dated 8th October, 2019 was registered under Section 302/120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860⁴[IPC] read with section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at the instance of one Jahar Sha⁵[the de-facto complainant] (nephew of the victim). The allegation levelled is that Anisur had entered into a conspiracy with the co-accused to eliminate his political rival, viz. the victim, and that in furtherance of such conspiracy, on 7th October, 2019, the victim was shot in the presence of the de-facto complainant for taking up vendetta against Anisur. On 16th November, 2019, Anisur was arrested.

4. Upon conclusion of investigation, police report (charge-sheet) under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973⁶[Cr. PC] was filed against Anisur and the co-accused. Charges having been framed, all the accused were committed for trial. The trial⁷[S.T. Case No.01(03)] was assigned to the 3rd Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, West Bengal. The de-facto complainant was examined as PW-1. He narrated the incident of murder and in course thereof implicated Anisur as a conspirator in the murder.

5. While the trial was in progress before the court at Tamluk and Anisur continued to remain in custody, surprisingly enough, the Legal Remembrancer and ex-officio Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department, made an order dated 26th February, 2021 to the following effect:

The undersigned is directed to say that the Government has been pleased to instruct the concerned Ld. Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the case being Sessions Case No.33 of 2020 arising out of Panskura P.S. Case No.496 of 2019 dated 08.10.2019 u/s. 302/120B IPC and U/s 25/27 of the Arms Act, pending before Ld. 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur under the provisions of Section 321 of Cr.P.C. subject to consent of the ld. Court.”

6. The order dated 26th February, 2021 came to be challenged by the de- facto complainant in a writ petition⁸[WPA No. 6315 of 2021] before the High Court at Calcutta.

7. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the court at Tamluk seized of the sessions trial mechanically acquitted the accused by an order dated 2nd March, 2021 as the prosecution had been withdrawn under Section 321, Cr. PC.

8. The writ petition of the de-facto complainant was taken up for consideration on 2nd March, 2021 itself by a Single Judge of the High Court. By an order of even date, the order dated 26th February, 2021 was set aside.

9. Anisur carried the order dated 2nd March, 2021 in an intra-court appeal. A Division Bench by its order dated 13th April, 2021 set aside the order under challenge on the technical ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The writ petition was directed to be re-heard on remand. However, while so ordering, the Division Bench clarified that the status prevailing when the Single Judge passed the order dated 2nd March, 2021 shall continue.

10. Since Anisur was already in custody and the Division Bench ha