The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday set aside a bail order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, after finding that the High Court had granted bail by relying entirely on a previous order, a basis which the Supreme Court had explicitly barred in a related matter.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the revival of the bail application before the High Court for a fresh decision on its own merits. The appeal, Sushil Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2486/2025), was filed by the complainant in the case.
Background of the Appeal
The appeal was directed against an order dated December 20, 2024, issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Vide the impugned order, the High Court had granted bail to Respondent No. 2.
The appellant, Sushil Singh, is the complainant in an FIR which alleges that Respondent No. 2, along with other co-accused, committed the murder of the appellant’s brother.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, upon perusal of the impugned order, noted that the High Court “entirely relied on an order dated 01st October, 2024 passed by it earlier” while deciding Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 30278/2024.
However, the bench’s attention was drawn to a preceding order dated October 23, 2024, passed by a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 14837/2024 (since re-numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 245/2025). In that order, the 3-Judge Bench had specifically directed that “no other accused shall be released on bail only on the basis of the impuged order dated 01st October, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad”.
Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 suggested that this Supreme Court order of October 23, 2024, “was not brought to the notice of the High Court” when it subsequently granted bail on December 20, 2024.
The Supreme Court bench, however, held that this submission was of no consequence, stating, “nothing much turns on it.” In a key observation, the Court asserted: “Once an order has been passed by this Court, the same demands respect, regard and reverence.”
The Final Decision
In light of these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order of December 20, 2024.
The Court directed the “revival of the bail application of the respondent no.2 before the High Court.” The roster Bench of the High Court has been instructed to “proceed to decide the bail application on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in the impugned order dated 20th December, 2024.”
While setting aside the order, the Supreme Court clarified that it was “not disturbing the interim bail granted to the respondent no.2 by this Court vide order dated 06th October, 2025.” The bench directed that Respondent No. 2 “shall continue to remain on interim bail” until the High Court decides the revived bail application.
The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the bail application “as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from date.”
The appeal was disposed of, “keeping open all points on merits.”
