2025 INSC 1136 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.4197-4199 OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NOS.5814-5816 OF 2025]
ABHIMANUE ETC. ETC. … APPELLANTS
VS.
STATE OF KERALA … RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 4200-4201 OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NOS.7641-7642 OF 2025]
VISHNU ETC. … APPELLANTS
VS.
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Assailed in the present set of appeals is the judgment and order
dated 11th December, 20241
of the Kerala High Court, passed on a
batch of petitions2
filed by the State of Kerala praying for setting
aside of grant of bail (through separate orders) to a total of 10
(ten) accused. Vide the impugned order, the High Court set aside
1 impugned order
2 Crl. M Nos. 4707, 4713, 4716, 4739, 4749, 4752, 4762, 4767 & 4798 of 2024
1
the orders granting bail to 5 (five) of the 10 (ten) accused, who
are the appellants before us.
3. A First Information Report3
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149,
324 and 302, Indian Penal Code, 18604
, was registered on 19th
December, 2021, against unknown persons. It was alleged
therein that such unknown persons committed the said offences
under the leadership of one political activist of a particular
political organization (not a party to these proceedings). Soon
thereafter, the appellants were arrested. As per the narrative in
the police report (charge-sheet) filed under Section 173(2), Code
of Criminal Procedure, 19735
dated 15th March, 2022, the accused
are activists of a particular political organization who, allegedly,
due to political enmity murdered the victim on 18th December,
2021. Accused 2-6 formed an unlawful assembly, followed the
victim in a vehicle and collided with his scooter at 5:50 pm. The
victim fell down whereupon he was brutally attacked; ultimately,
he succumbed to his injuries at 11:30 pm. The accused were
consequently charged with having committed offences under
Sections 120-B, 109, 115, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302, IPC
and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. We note that the
appellants Abhimanue, Athul, Sanand, Vishnu and Dhaneesh
figure as A-3, A-5, A-4, A-2 and A-6, respectively, in the chargesheet.
3 FIR No. 621/2021, PS Mannanchery, District Alappuzha, Kerala
4 IPC
5 Cr. PC
2
4. In December 2022, vide separate orders of various dates, after
being in custody for nearly a year, the appellants and the coaccused were granted bail by the trial court. The State applied for
cancellation of bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, who
rejected the application on 5th April, 2024.
5. Next, the State approached the High Court in May 2024 praying
for setting aside of the orders granting bail to the accused
persons.
6. The High Court divided the accused into two categories – (i)
conspirators and (ii) persons against whom the specific overt act
of murder was alleged. The appellants belong to the second
category. The High Court noted that bail was granted to the
appellants by the Sessions Court in a mechanical manner,
without referring to any “circumstance that should have been
borne in mind while granting bail in a heinous crime as murder”.
The High Court further noted that the Sessions Court granted bail,
based on two factors. First, the accused had been in custody for
more than a year, and secondly, there was no opposition from the
Public Prosecutor. The possibility of influencing the witnesses or
tampering with evidence was not borne in mind by the Sessions
Court, whereas only a few weeks prior, their bail applications
were rejected finding that they may influence the witnesses and
tamper with evidence. The High Court found that there was no
change of circumstances, and hence bail should not have been
granted. The High Court also rejected the argument that bail
3
should not be cancelled, as the applications praying for
cancellation were filed more than a year and a half after the grant
of bail. Accordingly, the bail granted in favour of the appellants
stood set aside by the High Court.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order revoking grant of bail, the
appellants have now carried it to this Court in appeal.
8. Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, submitted on
behalf of the appellants that setting aside orders granting bail, on
an application filed more than 18 (eighteen) months after such
grant, was unjustified. Further, the appellants did not tamper
evidence or influence witnesses, did not abscond, and did not
violate any other bail condition while on bail; as such, setting
aside of the orders granting bail was uncalled for and without
justifiable reasons. He further submitted that the application for
cancellation of bail, preferred by the State before the High Court,
was not maintainable. Since an earlier application for cancellation
had already been rejected by the Sessions Judge, the proper
remedy of the State was to approach the High Court under
Sections 401 and 482, Cr. PC, rather than by way of a fresh
application for cancellation before the High Court. Lastly, as the
State did not challenge the order of the Sessions Judge refusing
to cancel the bail, the said order has attained finality and is now
unassailable.
9. The State filed a status report pursuant to an order of this Court.
Upon perusal of the report, apart from the antecedents of the
4
accused, it is seen that the accused were identified based on
CCTV footage of the crime, which was recovered from a nearby
house. Relying thereon, learned senior counsel Mr. Dinesh,
representing the State, urged that the impugned order suffers
from no infirmity and, thus, deserves to be upheld.
10. It was also stated in the status report that Vishnu (A-2) had
violated a condition of interim bail (granted by this Court vide
order dated 28th May, 2025) by entering the district of Alappuzha
on 30th July, 2025. Vishnu (A-2), along with Rajendra Prasad (A-1),
allegedly assaulted and threatened (by knife) a person named
Abhiram on the same day which led to registration of FIR No.
1006/2025.
11. Opposing the petitions, Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 (widow of the
victim), submitted that the Sessions Court failed to consider the
severity of the allegations against the appellants and granted bail
by a non-speaking order. On the other hand, the order impugned
in these appeals is well-reasoned and this Court ought to be loath
to interfere therewith. Out of the total 10 (ten) accused, the High
Court set aside the orders granting bail of only 5 (five) accused,
after considering all relevant factors. Distinguishing them from
the conspirators, the appellants herein were classified in the
category of the actual assailants in the gruesome murder.
Specific overt acts attributable to each accused were discussed in
detail by the High Court. Our attention was also drawn to the
5
several criminal antecedents of the appellants. A-2, along with a
co-accused, allegedly committed offences even after the grant of
interim protection by this Court on 30th July, 2025. Moreover, it
was submitted that the Sessions Court granted bail to the several
accused upon hearing only the Public Prosecutor and not the
Special Public Prosecutor, who was appointed for the case. Lastly,
the High Court rightly held that delay in filing an application for
revocation of bail is no ground for rejecting such an application.
12. Mr. Chakraborty responded by stating that Vishnu entered into
the district as he was required to attend the ongoing trial of the
case on that date. As regards the commission of an offence by
Vishnu, it was submitted that the purported victim (Abhiram) had
denied the involvement of the accused persons in the offence by
way of an affidavit filed before the High Court in proceedings
instituted by Vishnu under Section 482, Cr. PC.
13. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
14. Before proceeding further, we consider it appropriate to begin our
analysis by addressing one of the arguments raised by Mr.
Chakraborty. He has challenged the very maintainability of the
application filed before the High Court. According to him, once an
application under Section 439(2), Cr. PC seeking cancellation of
bail has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, a second
application under the same provision cannot be filed directly
before the High Court. Instead, the proper course would be either
6
to challenge the Sessions Judge’s order in a petition for revision,
or to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section
482, Cr. PC.
15. We are unable to agree with this argument. We note that, in the
present case, the application before the High Court was filed
under “Section 482 r/w 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure”.
That being the case, nothing prevented the High Court from
exercising its inherent powers.
16. We now propose to proceed with our discussion on the other
aspects of the case.
17. Law is well settled that cancellation of bail is distinct from
revocation of an order granting bail. Bail may be cancelled when
the accused violates any of the conditions imposed. On the other
hand, an order granting bail can be revoked if such an order is
found to be perverse or illegal. In P v. State of Madhya
Pradesh6
, a three-judge Bench of this Court, after analyzing
various previous decisions, discussed the distinction between the
two. Relevant paragraphs of the decision are reproduced below:
21. Echoing the above principle, in Ranjit Singh v. State of
M.P. [Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 797 : (2014) 6 SCC
(Cri) 405], it has been held thus:
“19. … There is also a distinction between the concept of setting
aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order and cancellation of
an order of bail on the ground that the accused has
misconducted himself or certain supervening circumstances
warrant such cancellation. If the order granting bail is a perverse
one or passed on irrelevant materials, it can be annulled by the
superior court.”
6 (2022) 15 SCC 211
7
22. In Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary [Abdul
Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary, (2014) 10 SCC 754 : (2015) 1
SCC (Cri) 257], this Court has opined that: (SCC p. 763, para 19)
“19. Therefore, the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal
or perverse order is different from the concept of cancellation of
a bail on the ground of accused's misconduct or new adverse
facts having surfaced after the grant of bail which require such
cancellation and a perusal of the aforesaid decisions would
present before us that an order granting bail can only be set
aside on grounds of being illegal or contrary to law by the court
superior to the court which granted the bail and not by the same
court.”
***
24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling
bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening
circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant
of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to
permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail
during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 237] . To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this
Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court
below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or
perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an
order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate
court.
25. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused
under Section 439(1) CrPC can be cancelled are enumerated below:
(a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other
criminal activity;
(b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;
(c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
(d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
(e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;
(f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth
investigation;
(g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
(h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going
underground and/or becoming unavailable to the
investigating agency;
(i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his
surety.
(j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are
considered unconducive to a fair trial.
We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in nature
and not exhaustive.
(emphasis ours)
8
18. In the present case, the High Court revoked the orders granting
bail after noting that the Sessions Court kept only two
considerations in mind: period of custody and ‘no opposition from
the prosecution’, without a discussion of the other factors in
detail. However, the Sessions Court having primarily proceeded
on the premise of there being no objection from the side of the
prosecution for grant of bail, it would have been just and proper
for the High Court to direct the Sessions Court to consider all the
relevant factors and decide afresh the application of the
appellants for bail. Evidently, in the absence of the Sessions
Court looking into all relevant factors for grant of bail, the High
Court took upon itself such a responsibility. Looking at the gravity
of the crime and the apprehension of evidence being tampered
and witnesses being susceptible to influence and intimidation,
the High Court proceeded to revoke the bail.
19. What weighs with us now, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, is whether the High Court ought to have revoked
the bail for the reasons that it assigned or should the High Court
have directed the Sessions Court to decide the application for bail
afresh.
20. Directing the Sessions Court to decide the application for grant of
bail is an available option to us given the circumstances noted
above but having regard to the lapse of time and the submissions
advanced, we propose to decide the appeals on merits.
9
21. Apart from the fact that it has not been shown to our satisfaction
that the appellants violated any of the conditions of bail except in
one case, which we propose to consider a little later, we are of
the considered opinion that notwithstanding the gravity of the
offences alleged against the appellants, the conflicting interests
of individual liberty on the one hand and the victim’s rights as
well as concerns for community safety on the other could have
been better balanced bearing in mind that the appellants had
suffered incarceration for nearly a year and thereafter had been
on bail for almost 2 (two) years before the orders granting bail
were revoked vide the impugned order. The likelihood of the
accused influencing the witnesses or tampering with the
evidence and ensuring smooth progress of the trial could have
been taken care of by imposing stringent conditions over and
above those which were imposed while granting bail.
22. Reverting to the sole instance of violation of bail condition, we
note that after the grant of interim bail by this Court, Vishnu and
A-1 had allegedly assaulted and threatened Abhiram with a knife,
which led to Abhiram lodging an FIR under Sections 115 (2),
118(1), 351(2) and 25 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Seeking quashing of the said FIR, Vishnu approached the High
Court. The records indicate that Abhiram filed an affidavit before
the High Court denying Vishnu’s involvement in the crime stating
that “(T)he police may have for reasons best known to them
implicated him in the offence. After preparing the statement, I
10
merely affixed by signature at the paper as shown by them
without reading the statement. I was never aware that the
Petitioner’s name was included … .”. Abhiram also denied having
settled the dispute and clarified that “upon conciliation talks only
the misunderstanding was mitigated”. Suffice it to record on
perusal of the above statement that there is much more than
what meets the eyes. We are not prepared to accept the
contention that the FIR lodged by Abhiram affords ground for
cancellation of bail granted to Vishnu.
23. Our attention was also invited to the status report filed by the
State, to indicate the various criminal antecedents of the
appellants. Suffice it to say, however, that such antecedents by
themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail. In this
context, a useful reference may be made to the decision of a
coordinate Bench of this Court in Ayub Khan v. State of
Rajasthan7 of which one of us (Augustine George Masih, J.) was
a member. The relevant paragraph therefrom is extracted below:
10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of
the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by
him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima
facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of
incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to
deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on
the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may
not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant
default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in
such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can
grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. ……… .
24. Cancellation/revocation of bail, no doubt, seeks to uphold trial
integrity. The dominant purpose thereof is to ensure a fair trial
7 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763
11
and protect societal interests by preventing persons accused of a
heinous or grave crime and having tendencies to influence or
intimidate witnesses or to tamper evidence from being released.
Indeed, if such accused are likely to interfere with witness
testimony, the courts could be justified in ordering the accused to
be taken back into custody. However, at the same time, the
golden rule of bail jurisprudence propounded by Hon’ble V.R.
Krishna Iyer, J. of ‘bail being the rule and jail an exception’ cannot
be ignored. Taking back the appellants in custody for no better
reason than that the Sessions Court should not have been
swayed by omission of the Public Prosecutor to raise any
objection to grant of bail should not operate to the appellants’
prejudice, more so when two years have passed in the
interregnum.
25. Upon perusing the status report filed by the State, we find that
the case was posted for “schedule trial” on 30th May, 2025 and
thereafter the case has been listed on various dates. As per the
chargesheet, a total of 141 (one hundred forty-one) witnesses are
to be examined. Of them, there are at least five witnesses who
allegedly witnessed the crime. The trial will obviously take time to
conclude. Bearing in mind that the appellants since grant of bail
have not been involved in any similar or other offence, we prefer
to lean in favour of liberty rather than its curtailment.
Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, the
12
appellants’ liberty is not curtailed subject to imposition of certain
stringent conditions.
26. To obviate any possibility of tampering with evidence and
intimidation and/or influencing of the witnesses by the appellants,
we impose the following conditions for grant of bail to the
appellants:
a. The appellants shall not enter the limits of district Alappuzha,
save when their presence is required for the purposes of trial.
b. The appellants shall inform the trial court of their respective
address where they propose to stay during such time condition
(a) remains in force.
c. On every alternative day, the appellants shall mark their
presence at the police station having jurisdiction in respect of
their proposed places of stay. Such attendance need not be
marked, if on any particular day, they are required to remain
present before the trial court.
d. The appellants shall not procrastinate the trial and fully
cooperate with the trial court to take the trial to its logical
conclusion without any delay.
e. The appellants shall not tamper with prosecution evidence and
influence/intimidate the witnesses.
f. The appellants shall not pray for deferment of crossexamination of any eye-witness.
13
g. After the evidence of all the alleged eye-witnesses is recorded,
the appellants shall be at liberty to seek modification of
condition (a) supra before the trial court.
h. The appellants shall be required to furnish bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial court.
27. The trial court, in addition to the aforesaid conditions, may
impose any other conditions as it may deem fit and proper.
28. The police administration of the State may appoint the
investigating officer of the case or any other police officer to
ensure that not only do the appellants not influence/intimidate
the witnesses but also that protection to the witnesses, as and
when the occasion so demands, is provided.
29. We direct the State too to cooperate with the trial court by
ensuring the presence of all the private and official witnesses on
the dates fixed by the trial court for recording evidence.
30. The trial court is encouraged to expedite the trial by scheduling
dates in such a manner that witness testimony is recorded
without undue delay.
31. The appellants shall continue to remain on bail, pending trial,
subject to adherence to the terms and conditions for such grant
as imposed by the trial court, in addition to the conditions
imposed by us. Should there be any breach of the terms and
conditions and the same is brought to the notice of the trial court,
14
appropriate orders may be passed including cancellation of the
bail granted by this Court.
32. The impugned judgment and order revoking the orders granting
bail stands set aside. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
33. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………..…………….………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
…………..……………..……………J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 22, 2025.
15
