Whether the Allahabad High Court was legally justified in granting regular bail to the accused/Respondent No. 2 (Jeeshan). This must be evaluated considering that his previous bail was cancelled by the Supreme Court, he had continuously evaded arrest for 42 days following that cancellation, and he faced serious charges under Section 307 (Attempt to murder) of the IPC and the Arms Act for firing a weapon to intimidate eyewitnesses of a murder case.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s bail order. The Court held that the High Court committed a manifest error of law by completely ignoring the Supreme Court’s prior bail cancellation order, misapplying the principle of parity, and failing to examine the accused’s contumacious conduct of absconding. Respondent No. 2’s bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith.
1. Factual Background & Prosecution Case
- The Backdrop Murder Case: The appellant’s brother, Aamir, was murdered by certain individuals, including co-accused Aabaad and Aurangzeb (FIR No. 143/2023). Both Aabaad and Aurangzeb were subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in November 2025. Because the appellant refused to compromise in the murder case, he was threatened inside the court premises on February 27, 2024, leading to a criminal intimidation case (FIR No. 67/2024).
- The Incident on May 12, 2024: While the appellant’s uncle and cousin were returning home, they were intercepted by five accused persons, including Jeeshan (Respondent No. 2), who demanded they withdraw the murder case. The accused assaulted them with weapons, chased them into their house, and Jeeshan went to an adjacent rooftop and fired multiple gunshots at them with a country-made pistol with the intent to kill.
- Investigative Evidence: CCTV footage verified Jeeshan retrieving a country-made pistol, brandishing it on the road, and moving to the roof just before multiple gunshots were recorded. Based on his confession, a functional .315 bore pistol and a live cartridge were recovered, adding Sections 3, 25, and 27 of the Arms Act to his charges.
2. Judicial History and Absconding Conduct
- First Round of Bail: The High Court initially granted regular bail to Jeeshan on October 23, 2024, describing his role as “vague and general”. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, which set aside the bail order on January 27, 2025, noting that the High Court had ignored the serious nature of the case and the specific role assigned to Jeeshan. Jeeshan was ordered to surrender forthwith.
- Evasion of Law: Instead of surrendering, Jeeshan absconded for approximately 42 days. This forced the Trial Court to issue a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) on February 10, 2025, and subsequently initiate proclamation proceedings under Section 82 of the CrPC on February 28, 2025. Jeeshan finally surrendered on March 10, 2025.
- The Impugned High Court Order: Jeeshan approached the Allahabad High Court again, and a Single Judge granted him bail on September 22, 2025, citing a 7-hour delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of any physical firearm injuries on the victims, and the fact that co-accused Aurangzeb had been granted bail.
3. Key Observations & Findings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, through a bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, strongly rebuked the High Court’s approach on several grounds:
- Disregard for Supreme Court Orders: The Court observed that the High Court’s primary infirmity was its complete lack of engagement with the Supreme Court’s prior order dated January 27, 2025, which had cancelled Jeeshan’s first bail. A High Court cannot grant bail after a Supreme Court cancellation unless there is a material change in circumstances or fresh supervening grounds, neither of which existed here.
- Contumacious Conduct of the Accused: Jeeshan’s failure to comply with the immediate surrender order and his subsequent 42-day evasion—compelling the execution of NBWs and Section 82 CrPC proceedings—proved that he was a flight risk who actively defied the judicial process. His excuse that a Review Petition was pending was rejected, as filing a review does not act as an automatic stay.
- Absence of Injury Does Not Negate Section 307 IPC: The Court reiterated the established legal principle that a physical firearm injury is not a mandatory prerequisite to attract Section 307 IPC. The intention and knowledge are what matter. If an accused fires a gun at victims with the intent to kill, and they escape purely by chance, the offense of attempt to murder is legally complete.
- Mechanical and Erroneous Application of Parity: The High Court’s reliance on parity with co-accused Aurangzeb was held to be completely misplaced. Aurangzeb was accused of a knife assault, whereas Jeeshan was explicitly captured on CCTV retrieving, brandishing, and firing a firearm, leading to an Arms Act recovery against him. Parity is not an inflexible rule and cannot be applied when roles are materially distinct.
- Systemic Threat to Witnesses: The Court noted that the crime was not an isolated altercation but a premeditated, coordinated attempt to terrorize and coerce eyewitnesses into compromising a separate murder trial. Granting bail under such circumstances places the life and liberty of victims and witnesses at grave risk, thwarting the course of justice.
4. Final Directions Issued
- Bail Cancelled: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order dated September 22, 2025. The bail granted to Respondent No. 2 (Jeeshan) was officially cancelled.
- Immediate Surrender: Respondent No. 2 was directed to surrender before the Trial Court immediately.
- Coercive Action on Failure: If the accused fails to surrender, the Trial Court is mandated to take immediate necessary legal steps, including the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant, to secure his physical custody.
2026 INSC 526
Mohseen V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (D.O.J. 22.05.2026)
