The Supreme Court of India has, for the third time, set aside a bail order from the Allahabad High Court for an accused, Waseem, in a murder and rioting case. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti quashed the bail, stating that the High Court’s order not only failed to give “due deference” to previous Supreme Court judgments cancelling the same accused’s bail but also relied on “thoroughly unwarranted” reasoning, including the issue of overcrowded jails.
The Court directed the accused to surrender within three weeks and clarified that he shall remain in custody until the conclusion of the trial.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by the informant, Ajwar, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order dated June 3, 2025, which granted bail to Waseem. The accused is facing charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 302, 307, 504, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
This case has a long and contentious history of bail applications. The High Court first granted bail to Waseem on August 22, 2022, which was set aside by the Supreme Court on October 14, 2022, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The High Court again granted bail on December 7, 2022. This second grant of bail was also challenged, and the Supreme Court, in a detailed judgment on May 17, 2024, cancelled it.
In its May 17, 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court had allowed the accused to seek bail afresh, but only under specific conditions, observing: “‘It is also clarified that in the event of any new circumstances emerging, the respondents shall be entitled to apply for bail at a later stage.'”
Following this, Waseem applied for bail before the trial court, which was rejected on January 20, 2025. He then approached the High Court, which granted him bail via the impugned order, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Submissions (Ajwar): The counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court’s order violated the spirit of the Supreme Court’s previous judgment. It was submitted that any “new circumstances emerging” could only be those that arose after the bail was last cancelled on May 17, 2024. The appellant contended that the High Court had delved into aspects already settled by the Supreme Court. The grounds cited, such as the period of custody and parity with other co-accused who were granted bail, were not valid new circumstances. Furthermore, it was argued that the accused had previously misused his liberty by intimidating witnesses and had existing criminal antecedents.
Respondent’s Submissions (Waseem): Senior counsel for the respondent argued that bail, once granted, should only be cancelled if the accused has abused the privilege, which was not the case here. It was submitted that Waseem had not hampered the trial or indulged in any criminal activity since his release. The counsel also pointed to a counter-case filed by the accused party and alleged that injuries on their side were not being properly investigated. It was argued that Waseem was at least similarly situated to other co-accused whose bail had been upheld. The counsel urged the court not to be swayed by the appellant’s arguments and to consider the matter based on the substantive reasons recorded by the High Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court expressed its disapproval of the High Court’s approach from the outset, stating, “Upon taking into account the entirety of the case, we may candidly state that the Impugned Order requires intercession.”
The bench emphasized a fundamental constitutional principle: “The scheme of the Constitution mandates that all Orders/Judgments of this Court have to be given due deference to by all other Courts, including the High Courts, in letter and in spirit.”
The Court noted that the High Court had failed to properly appreciate the detailed May 17, 2024 judgment, which had left only a “limited window open in futuro” for seeking bail. The bench found fault with the reasoning provided by the High Court for granting bail. The High Court had cited factors such as the examination of fact witnesses, the uncertainty of trial conclusion, “one sided investigation by police,” and “5-6 times overcrowding in jails.”
The Supreme Court strongly criticized these grounds. It observed: “Observations such as ‘one sided investigation by police’ and ‘ignoring the case of accused side’ besides being thoroughly unwarranted, had absolutely no nexus with the prayer for bail which the learned Single Judge was seized of.”
On the issue of jail conditions, the Court held: “Given the heinous nature of the alleged offence(s), in our considered view, it was not open to the High Court to make ‘5-6 times overcrowding in jails’ as a ground to allow bail.”
The bench concluded that the High Court’s order failed to offer insight into the “new circumstances” and omitted to consider whether such circumstances had genuinely emerged to justify bail. While clarifying that bail orders need not be lengthy, the Court reiterated that they must contain “cogent and germane reasoning,” especially when a higher court has previously cancelled bail in the same matter.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court’s order dated June 3, 2025. The bail granted to respondent Waseem was set aside, and he was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within three weeks.
The Court directed the Trial Court to “endeavour with full vigour to proceed on priority and conclude the trial expeditiously.”
In a significant final direction, after a plea from the respondent’s counsel, the Court clarified the path forward. It stated: “…we clarify that respondent no.1 shall remain in custody and not be enlarged on bail till the conclusion of the trial.” However, it provided a remedy in case of undue delay, adding that if the trial is not concluded expeditiously for reasons not attributable to the accused, “he shall be at liberty to approach this Court directly for obtaining bail.”
