Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Usman Ali – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh And Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 2026 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4713 of 2025]
Decided On : 30-01-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Section 483 of BNSS] – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – FIR registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act – Respondent-accused was not named in FIR, but was made accused on the basis of oral dying declaration of deceased and disclosure statement of co-accused – He has suffered incarceration for a period of six and a half years in jail when impugned order was passed by High Court – Co-accused in same FIR has been granted bail by High Court – Prosecution proposes to examine 55 witnesses – However, only 13 witnesses including material witnesses have been examined – Considering long pre-trial incarceration of respondent-accused and evidence against him, present is not a case where discretion of grant of bail exercised by High Court in favour of respondent-accused should be interfered – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9, 10 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal calls in question the order dated 22.1.2025 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directing release of respondent No.2/Rinku Bhardwaj @ Prakash Rajbhar on bail who is an accused in First Information Report/Case Crime No.238 of 2018 registered at Police Station – Chopan, District – Sonbhadra under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18601 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.
Findings of Court:
High Court passed the impugned order on 22.01.2025 i.e., more than a year ago and there is no allegation that, during this period, respondent No.2 has misused the liberty granted to him.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appeal concerns an order by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directing the release of respondent No.2 on bail, who is an accused in a criminal case involving serious charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (!) .
The appellant argued that respondent No.2 is a dangerous criminal with significant local influence, involved in a high-profile murder using prohibited weapons, and that he has a criminal history. The appellant also expressed concern about threats to the informant's life and alleged that the facts presented to the High Court were incomplete or inaccurate (!) .
The respondent No.2 was not named in the FIR but was implicated based on oral dying declarations and disclosure statements of co-accused. He has been incarcerated for approximately six and a half years, and co-accused in the same FIR have been granted bail (!) .
The court emphasized that bail is a matter of individual liberty and should not be interfered with lightly. It highlighted that the High Court's discretion in granting bail must be exercised with due consideration, especially in cases where the accused has long pre-trial detention and the evidence against him is substantial but not conclusive (!) (!) .
The court noted that the respondent has not misused his liberty during the period since bail was granted and that the circumstances did not justify canceling or refusing bail at this stage. The long incarceration period and the absence of supervening circumstances led the court to conclude that the High Court's decision was appropriate (!) (!) .
Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail was justified under the circumstances (!) .
These points reflect the court's reasoning regarding the principles of bail, the specifics of the case, and the importance of balancing individual liberty with public interest and justice.
JUDGMENT
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal calls in question the order dated 22.1.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directing release of respondent No.2/Rinku Bhardwaj @ Prakash Rajbhar on bail who is an accused in First Information Report/Case Crime No.238 of 2018 registered at Police Station – Chopan, District – Sonbhadra under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [For short, “the IPC”] and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.
3. Vide order dated 19.05.2025, this Court has appointed Shri Abhishek Mohan Goel, learned counsel, as Amicus Curiae (Pro Bono) to assist the Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the learned Amicus Curiae.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that respondent No.2 is a dreaded criminal with huge local influence and is involved in the murder of a panchayat Chairman in a broad daylight using prohibited automatic weapons which was carried out at the behest of respondent No.2. It is further argued that respondent No.2 hired Kashmir Paswan for the assassination of the deceased victim. Respondent No.2 was absconding after the incident and could be arrested after a joint operation of the Special Task Force, Uttar Pradesh and the Anti-Terror Squad (STF), Kolkata, West Bengal. It is further argued that respondent No.2 has a long criminal history which has been ignored by the High Court while directing his release on bail. It is argued that there is a strong apprehension of threat to life of the appellant/informant. It is further argued that correct facts were not placed before the High Court which has led to incorrect observations in the impugned order and particularly the criminal history and conduct of respondent No.2 have not been considered.
6. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the present is not a case where this Court is considering a prayer for grant of bail, but the prayer is for cancellation of bail. Referring to Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 118 Dolat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Manjit Prakash and Others vs. Shobha Devi and Another, (2009) 13 SCC 785 it is argued by the learned Amicus Curiae that the contours of cancellation of bail are strict and a bail can only be cancelled in exceptional circumstances where the situation demands passing of such an order. In the present case, the facts are not as such which warrants cancellation of bail. Therefore, according to the learned Amicus Curiae, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. The incident occurred at about 6:00 a.m. on 25.10.2018 when the deceased had gone for his daily exercise to Kasba Preetnagar, Chopan, where he was fatally shot by unknown people. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. It is the case of the prosecution that while on his way to the hospital, the deceased made a statement that he was attacked by one Rakesh Jaiswal and one Ravi Jalan in connivance with many others. An FIR was registered against Rakesh Jaiswal, Ravi Jalan and four unknown attackers. The alleged assailant – Kashmir Paswan was arrested by Police and on his disclosure statement, respondent No.2 was subsequently arrested on 27.12.2018. It is stated that witnesses – Suresh Kumar Tau and Vineet Sharma, also stated in their case diary statements that the deceased, before his death, made a statement that respondent No.2 is also involved in the incident.
8. It is borne out from the record that co-accused - Dharamendra Kumar and Arvind Kesari, have already been released on bail by the High Court.
9. In the impugned order, it is recorded that the prosecution proposes to examine 55 witnesses. However, only 13 witnesses including material witnesses have been examined. The High Court has noted the arguments raised on behalf of respondent No.2 that considering the congruency in role
Bail – Bail once granted same cannot be cancelled without any compelling reasons.
(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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, following well-established principles, and not in a mechanical or cryptic manner.
Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail.
(1) Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail and bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner.(2) For cancelling bail once granted, Court....
(1) Once bail has been granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation.(2) Bail can be revoked by a superior court when previous court granting bail has ignored relevant mate....
An appellate court will cancel bail if the lower court fails to provide reasoned orders, ignores material evidence, disregards an accused's contumacious conduct in evading legal processes, or misappl....
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
