Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Mohseen – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2771 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16696 of 2025)
Decided On : 22-05-2026
Key Points: - The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order granting bail to Respondent No. 2 and directed his surrender [35][36][37]. - A bail order is considered perverse if it fails to engage with a prior order cancelling bail or ignores the accused's conduct in evading legal processes [23][34]. - Ground for bail based on parity is not an inflexible rule and cannot be mechanically applied when the roles of the accused are materially distinct [30] (!) . - The specific role of firing a country-made pistol and the recovery of a weapon distinguish the Respondent No. 2's role from a co-accused whose role was primarily assault by knife [30] (!) (!) . - The Respondent No. 2 displayed contumacious conduct by absconding for approximately 42 days after his initial bail was cancelled, necessitating an NBW and proceedings under Section 82 CrPC [26] (!) . - The absence of physical firearm injuries does not negate a charge under Section 307 IPC if the act was done with the intent or knowledge that it could cause death [29]. - Evidence including CCTV footage, eyewitness accounts, and recovery of a weapon constitutes a prima facie case that must be considered during bail assessment [28]. - Bail orders must be reasoned and demonstrate a critical assessment of materials on record rather than a mere recitation of facts [33]. - Courts must consider the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims and witnesses when deciding on bail, especially in cases of premeditated intimidation [31][32]. - An appellate court may cancel bail if the lower court ignores relevant material evidence, the gravity of the offence, or the accused's obstructionist conduct [34].
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of procedural history and factual background regarding fir no. 179/2024 and bail history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 2. synthesizing contentions from prosecution and defense regarding evidence, conduct, and parity. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. the requirement for reasoned bail orders and considering conduct and witness safety against parity. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. final order setting aside high court bail for failing to meet requisite judicial standards. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
Leave Granted.
2. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the Appellant/Informant, challenging the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18594 of 2025, whereby the Single Judge was pleased to enlarge Respondent No. 2/accused Jeeshan on bail, during the pendency of the trial in connection with FIR No. 179/2024, registered at Police Station Partapur, District Meerut, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
RELEVANT FACTS
3. The facts material to the adjudication of this matter, as regards the prosecution case and as emerging from the record, are that the Appellant's brother, one Aamir, was murdered by certain accused persons, including Aabaad and Aurangzeb, in connection with which FIR No. 143/2023 was registered at Police Station Partapur, District Meerut, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 341, 352, 504, 506, 34, 452 and 325 IPC. The co-accused Aabaad and Aurangzeb in the murder case are also co-accused persons in the present case. It is pertinent to note that both Aabaad and Aurangzeb were subsequently convicted in the aforesaid murder case on 12.11.2025 and sentenced to life imprisonment on 14.11.2025 in Sessions Trial No. 729/2023, and further convicted on 01.11.2025 under the Gangsters Act in Session Trial No. 270/2024 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
4. It is in this background that on 27.02.2024, when the Appellant was attending the proceedings of the aforesaid murder case before the Trial Court at Meerut, he was threatened by the co-accused Aabaad and Aurangzeb within the court premises itself on account of his refusal to compromise in the aforesaid murder case. In connection with this episode of intimidation an FIR bearing No. 67/2024, under Section 506 IPC, was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut, against the said co-accused persons.
5. The current proceedings emanate from another incident which took place on 12.05.2024, at approximately 4:30 PM, when the Appellant's uncle Rihan and his cousin Afsar were returning home from a neighbouring village. The accused persons, namely Aurangzeb, Aabaad, Jeeshan (Respondent No. 2), Arbaz and Shahnawaz intercepted them on the road. The accused persons stopped the victims and demanded that they withdraw the murder case by abusing and threatening them. As per the FIR which was registered as FIR No. 179/2024 (supra), and the statements of the injured persons, the accused persons then assaulted the victims with lathi, danda, knife and tamancha (country-made pistol). The victims ran towards their houses to save their lives; the accused followed them and forcibly entered the premises, continuing the assault.
6. In the said incident, the Respondent No. 2/accused Jeeshan was seen in the CCTV footage obtained from the cameras installed near the location, arriving on a motorcycle, entering his house, retrieving a country-made pistol, and thereafter, brandishing it on the road. Subsequently, the CCTV footage revealed the Respondent No. 2 going to the roof of the adjacent house with the pistol, after which the sound of multiple gun
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....
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.
Bail – There cannot be any undue discrimination in matter of grant of bail.
(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....
(1) Habitual offenders having criminal proclivity should not be granted bail by Court.(2) Bail – Court must appreciate and consider nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of convicti....
(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....
Cancellation of Bail – Court while granting bail has not considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, severity of the punishment in the event of bail, likelihood of repetition of the offence....
The legal principle established is that strong and cogent reasons are required to deprive the liberty of an accused, and the prescribed procedure for seeking arrest or cancellation of bail must be fo....
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
