Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

High Court Granting Bail: While his previous bail was cancelled by Supreme Court

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

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

  1. 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.
  2. Immediate Surrender: Respondent No. 2 was directed to surrender before the Trial Court immediately.
  3. 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)

2026 INSC 526 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Admissibility of Deceased Witness Testimony Against Absconding Accused

July 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of West Bengal, ruling that the deposition of a deceased witness recorded in an earlier trial is admissible in a subsequent trial against an absconding accused, provided the requirements of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are met. The Court clarified that the provision serves to preserve evidence when an accused deliberately absconds, preventing them from benefiting from the unavailability of material witnesses due to the passage of time. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, which had denied the admission of the victim’s testimony, confirming that the statutory preconditions—the accused absconding and no immediate prospect of arrest—were satisfied at the time the witness deposed.

  • Background: In a 2012 gang-rape case, the respondent and another accused were absconding while three others were tried and convicted. The victim, a key witness, testified in the first trial but passed away in 2015. After the respondent was arrested in 2016, the prosecution sought to admit the victim’s earlier deposition as evidence under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 299 of the CrPC.
  • High Court Order: The High Court of Calcutta had rejected the application, observing that the prosecution had a duty to obtain a specific direction from the Trial Court to record evidence against the absconder during the first trial, and thus the earlier deposition could not be used against the respondent.
  • Interpretation of Section 299 CrPC: The Supreme Court held that Section 299 CrPC acts as an exception to the general rule requiring a witness to be examined in the presence of the accused. It does not mandate a formal, prior order from a Magistrate to record that the accused is absconding; rather, what is relevant is whether the conditions—that the accused is absconding and there is no immediate prospect of arrest—were established at the time the evidence was recorded.
  • Preventing Misuse of Process: The Court reasoned that taking a restrictive view of Section 299 would jeopardize the criminal justice system by incentivizing accused persons to wilfully abscond and await the death or unavailability of material witnesses.
  • Application to Facts: The Court noted that the respondent was a declared absconder when the victim’s testimony was recorded (2013), and he remained at large until his arrest in 2016. As the two essential conditions of Section 299(1) were met, the deceased victim’s evidence is admissible in the trial against the respondent.

Legislative Continuity: The Court noted that the legislature has maintained this principle in Section 335 of the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, reinforcing the intent to ensure evidence is preserved against those who evade trial.

2026 INSC 718

The State of West Bengal v. Kader Khan – (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 718 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Insolvency and Bankruptcy: Finality of Resolution Plans and Extinguishment of Sub-judice Claims

July 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (Appellant-SRA), ruling that upon the approval of a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), all claims—including those pending adjudication (sub-judice)—that are not specifically provided for in the plan stand extinguished. The Court held that the “clean slate” doctrine is fundamental to the IBC, preventing unresolved or contingent claims from resurfacing and undermining the revival of the corporate debtor. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court orders and dismissed the civil suit and arbitration proceedings initiated by operational creditors, affirming that they are bound by the terms of the approved Resolution Plan.

  • Background: The Appellant-SRA challenged Bombay High Court orders that allowed a civil recovery suit and arbitration proceedings to continue against the corporate debtor (Bhushan Steel Limited) despite the approval of its Resolution Plan. The respondents, operational creditors, sought to pursue claims that were pending at the time of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
  • Treatment of Claims: During the CIRP, the Resolution Professional admitted the respondents’ disputed claims at a notional value of Rupee One (1) each. The approved Resolution Plan stipulated that because the liquidation value was NIL, no amounts were due to operational creditors; however, a settlement fund was provided for those with admitted claims.
  • The “Clean Slate” Doctrine: The Court emphasized that a successful resolution applicant must start on a “clean slate,” free from “hydra-headed” surprise claims. Once a Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, it becomes binding on all stakeholders, and claims not incorporated therein are deemed extinguished, withdrawn, or abated.
  • Finality of the Plan: The Court noted that the Final List of Creditors attained finality, and the respondents could not seek to reopen or question the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors after the plan’s approval. The Court found no merit in the allegations of fraud, noting that no proceedings had been initiated under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules to challenge the plan’s integrity.
  • No Express Carve-out: Upon a harmonious reading of the Resolution Plan, the Court concluded there was no express “carve-out” protecting sub-judice claims from extinguishment. The plan explicitly mandated that all legal proceedings relating to the period prior to the effective date stand extinguished, except to the extent of the specific settlement amount provided.
  • Observation on MSMEs: In an “Afterword,” the Court observed that the current insolvency framework does not adequately account for the position of small operational creditors and MSMEs, who are often placed at the bottom of the repayment waterfall. The Court suggested that the Legislature and Law Commission examine this to ensure a more balanced repayment mechanism.
  • Outcome: The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the contrary High Court orders, and dismissed the pending civil suit and arbitration proceedings, enforcing the finality of the Resolution Plan.

2026 INSC 717

M/S Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha & Anr. (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 717 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Excluding Nominated Members from Local Authority Elections

July 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Karnataka’s decision to exclude nominated members of Town Panchayats from participating in Legislative Council elections for Local Authorities’ Constituencies. The Court ruled that under the constitutional framework established by the 74th Amendment (Part IX-A), nominated members, who serve only in an advisory capacity, lack the democratic mandate of elected representatives. Consequently, their inclusion in the electoral roll was declared unconstitutional, and the Court affirmed the direction to conduct a recount of votes after segregating the invalid votes cast by these nominated members.

  • Background: The election to the Karnataka Legislative Council (Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities Constituency) was challenged because 12 nominated members from four Town Panchayats were included in the electoral roll and participated in the voting. The appellant, who won by a narrow margin of 6 votes, contended that the electoral roll’s finality should be respected.
  • Constitutional Interpretation: The Court held that while Article 171(3)(a) mentions “members” of local authorities, this must be interpreted through the lens of the 74th Constitutional Amendment. Article 243-R establishes that while nominated members may be appointed for their expertise, they are expressly barred from voting in municipal meetings, underscoring their advisory rather than representative role.
  • Democratic Representation: The Supreme Court emphasized that allowing nominated members to vote in Legislative Council elections would undermine the democratic nature of the electoral process, as they are not democratically elected. The Court affirmed that “members” in the context of electoral colleges refers to democratically elected representatives.
  • Finality of Electoral Rolls: While acknowledging the principle that electoral rolls typically attain finality, the Court distinguished this case by noting that the inclusion of the nominated members was void ab initio and unconstitutional. Therefore, the finality of the roll could not be used to validate an illegality that strikes at the core of the electoral college’s composition.
  • Secrecy of the Ballot: The Court rejected the argument that segregating these votes would violate the secrecy of the ballot. It maintained that the higher constitutional goal of preserving free and fair elections and ensuring the purity of the electoral process outweighs the requirement for absolute secrecy in this specific context.
  • Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s orders. The Court directed the authorities to proceed with the consequential actions based on the recount results already obtained, ensuring that the election outcome reflects only the valid votes cast by elected representatives.

2026 INSC 716

Pranesh M.K. v. Shanthegowda & Ors. – (D.O.J. 16.07.2026)

2026 INSC 716 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Railway: Establishing Liability in Untoward Railway Incidents

July 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent dismissal of a compensation claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Court held that when a passenger dies in an “untoward incident” (falling from a running train), the absence of a recovered ticket does not automatically negate the status of a bona fide passenger. Emphasizing the “no-fault liability” principle under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Court ruled that once the claimant establishes the foundational facts through an affidavit, the burden shifts to the Railways. Technical lapses and the inability to recover personal belongings should not defeat the humanitarian and welfare objectives of the legislation.

  • Background: The appellant filed a claim for compensation following the death of her husband, who fell from a running train while traveling from Raipur to Ahmedabad. The Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court previously rejected the claim, citing a lack of proof regarding the deceased being a bona fide passenger (specifically due to the missing ticket).
  • Legal Principle (No-Fault Liability): The Court reiterated that Section 124A of the 1989 Act is a beneficial, “no-fault” provision. It is designed to provide expeditious relief to victims of untoward incidents without requiring proof of negligence by the Railway Administration.
  • Burden of Proof: Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, the Court clarified that:
    • The mere absence of a ticket does not disprove that a person was a bona fide
    • The initial burden is on the claimant, which is sufficiently discharged by filing an affidavit stating the facts.
    • Once this is done, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim based on attending circumstances.
  • Operational Concerns: The Court highlighted the critical issue of chronic overcrowding in Indian Railways. It noted that while the Railway Manuals contain detailed safety and ticketing protocols, the execution often fails. The Court suggested that Railways should increase manpower to better manage safety and ticketing, which could simultaneously reduce such tragedies and provide employment.
  • Constitutional Perspective: The Court observed that using terms like “second class passenger” is outdated and potentially offensive to the spirit of the Constitution of India; it suggested that class designations should refer to the “coach” rather than the “passenger.”

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court judgments. It ordered the Railways to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000 to the appellant within four weeks, failing which the amount would attract interest at 8% from the date of the original claim filing.

2026 INSC 715

Lata v. Union of India & Anr. – (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 715 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins