The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal seeking the cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a murder case, ruling that the factors for cancelling bail are distinct from and stricter than those for rejecting bail initially. The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision, emphasizing that “cogent and overwhelming circumstances” are necessary to cancel bail once granted.
Legal Issue and Outcome
The appeal challenged the order dated January 22, 2025, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which directed the release of Respondent No. 2, Rinku Bhardwaj alias Prakash Rajbhar, on bail. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s discretion, observing that the accused was not named in the First Information Report (FIR) and had already suffered incarceration for approximately six and a half years.
Background of the Case
The case stems from FIR 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 (IPC) and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. The incident occurred on October 25, 2018, when the deceased was fatally shot by unknown assailants while exercising.
According to the prosecution, the deceased, while being taken to the hospital, stated that he was attacked by Rakesh Jaiswal and Ravi Jalan in connivance with others. Respondent No. 2 was not initially named in the FIR but was implicated based on the disclosure statement of an alleged assailant, Kashmir Paswan, and oral dying declarations mentioned in the case diary statements of witnesses. Rinku Bhardwaj was arrested on December 27, 2018.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant, Usman Ali, argued that Respondent No. 2 is a “dreaded criminal with huge local influence” involved in the broad daylight murder of a Panchayat Chairman using automatic weapons. It was alleged that the murder was carried out at the behest of Respondent No. 2, who had hired assassins. The appellant contended that the accused had absconded after the incident and was arrested only after a joint operation by the Special Task Force (STF), Uttar Pradesh, and the Anti-Terror Squad (ATS), Kolkata. The counsel further argued that the High Court ignored the respondent’s long criminal history and that there was a strong apprehension of threat to the informant’s life.
Shri Abhishek Mohan Goel, appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court, submitted that the present matter involved a prayer for cancellation of bail rather than the grant of bail. Citing precedents, he argued 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.” He submitted that the facts of the case did not warrant such an action.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the distinction between the rejection of bail in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. The Court referred to its earlier judgments in Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and Another (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Dolat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 to highlight these differences.
Factors for Grant/Rejection of Bail: Quoting Mahipal, the Court noted that at the initial stage of granting or rejecting bail, the Court must balance public interest and individual liberty. The primary factors include:
- A prima facie view that the accused had committed the offence.
- The nature and gravity of the offence.
- The likelihood of the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial.
- The likelihood of evading the course of justice.
Factors for Cancellation of Bail: Conversely, referencing Dolat Ram, the Bench clarified that cancellation requires “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances.” The grounds for cancellation are distinct and include:
- Interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice.
- Evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice.
- Abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner.
- Possibility of the accused absconding.
- Supervening circumstances rendering it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain freedom.
The Bench emphasized that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. The Court stated:
“Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”
Applying these principles to the facts, the Bench observed:
“It is significant to mention that respondent No.2 was not named in the FIR and was arrested subsequently on the basis of the oral dying declaration of the deceased and disclosure statement of the co-accused.”
The Court highlighted that the accused had been incarcerated for about six and a half years at the time the High Court passed the impugned order. Furthermore, co-accused persons, Dharamendra Kumar, Arvind Kesari, and Ravi Kumar Gupta, had already been released on bail.
Significantly, the Supreme Court pointed out that more than a year had passed since the High Court’s order dated January 22, 2025, stating:
“There is no allegation that, during this period, respondent No.2 has misused the liberty granted to him. Thus, considering long pre-trial incarceration of respondent No.2 and the evidence against him, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present is not a case where the discretion of grant of bail exercised by the High Court in favour of respondent No.2 should be interfered.”
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s order releasing Rinku Bhardwaj on bail.
Case Details:
Case Title: Usman Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4713 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
