Detailed Appreciation Of Evidence Is Impermissible At Bail Stage : Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Bail In SC/ST Act Murder Case
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench order granting bail to two accused in a murder case arising from an alleged group assault linked to a land-right dispute, in which offences under the SC/ST Act were also invoked. The Court cancelled the bail, directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within four weeks, and ordered expeditious completion of trial within one year, holding that at the bail stage the High Court could not test the authenticity of medical evidence through a detailed evaluation.
The appeal arose from a challenge to a High Court order granting bail to two accused in connection with an FIR registered at Kopargaon Taluka Police Station, District Ahmednagar. The complainant alleged that a long-standing civil dispute regarding a right of way over agricultural land existed between her family and the accused. On the date of the incident, her husband was allegedly assaulted by six persons, including the respondents, with iron rods and sticks. It was further alleged that caste-based abuses were hurled during the assault. The injured later succumbed to injuries sustained during the incident.
The FIR invoked offences under Sections 302, 354, 294, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 509, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The High Court granted bail, inter alia, noting the time gap between the incident and death, the number of injuries, and absence of specific attribution of head injury to the respondents. The complainant challenged the bail order before the Supreme Court.
The Court observed, “We make it clear that there is a clear distinction between cancellation of bail on the considerations provided under Section 439(2) CrPC … and reversal of an order of bail by the superior Court.” It recorded that “the order granting bail can be interfered with by the superior Court considering the nature and gravity of the offences; if the order granting bail ignores the relevant material available on record or that the same is based on extraneous considerations.”
Referring to precedent, the Court quoted, “While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused… the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused…” It further quoted, “If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail.”
On the High Court’s reasoning, the Bench recorded, “The prior litigation between the parties… can work both ways. This litigation could, very well, have fuelled the respondents-accused with the motive to launch the assault.” It noted, “There is clear allegation in the FIR that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, the common object whereof was to belabor and kill the deceased Namdev.”
The Court stated, “In a case where the offence is committed by an unlawful assembly, each member of the assembly is equally responsible for the acts committed in furtherance of the unlawful object.” It added, “The observation of the High Court that the accused were six in number and they inflicted only eight injuries… is absolutely irrelevant and could not have been a ground to grant bail.”
It further observed: “observation made by the High Court regarding the time gap between the date of the incident and the date of death of the deceased…is concerned, the said aspect would have to be gone into by the trial Court at the time of appreciating the medical evidence.”
Regarding medical evidence, it recorded, “Once the High Court itself noted the multiple injuries on the body of the deceased with injury No. 8 causing deep rooted cerebral damage by blunt trauma, there was absolutely no justifiable reason to grant bail to the accused respondents.”
The Court directed, “The impugned order does not stand scrutiny and is hereby set aside. The bail granted to the respondents-accused by the High Court is cancelled. The respondents-accused shall surrender before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate steps to secure their custody during the pendency of the trial. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from today.”
“We make it clear that the observations made above are only restricted to the consideration of this appeal for cancellation of bail and shall have no bearing on the outcome of the trial and the trial Court shall proceed with the case uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. We further grant liberty to the accused to renew their prayer for bail once the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the medical jurist is recorded by the trial Court. With these observations, the appeal is allowed.” and “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Priyanka Deshpande, Adv. Dr. R. R. Deshpande, AOR Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv. Ms. Vidya B.kothule, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Case Title: Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 181
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 12440 of 2023)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
