Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an application by the murder accused seeking relaxation of a bail condition restricting him to Kolkata, along with a connected plea seeking cancellation of his bail, and directed that the sessions trial proceed in accordance with law. The case arises from allegations that the accused participated in a conspiracy to murder a political rival, with the prosecution opposing any dilution of safeguards imposed at the time of his release. During the hearing, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of litigants seeking to revisit earlier bail orders by approaching a different bench, cautioning that such attempts at bench hunting would erode the finality of judgments envisaged under Article 141.

Panskura Police Station registered an FIR on 8 October 2019 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, alleging that the victim was shot dead in a conspiracy involving the accused. The FIR was lodged by the victim’s nephew. After investigation, a charge-sheet under the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed and the case was committed to a Sessions Court, where the complainant, examined as PW-1, narrated the incident and implicated the accused as a conspirator.

Also Read: 'Indian Courts Have No Jurisdiction To Appoint Arbitrator For Foreign-Seated Arbitration': Supreme Court Dismisses Section 11 Petition Under A & C Act In Buyer–Seller Agreement Dispute Seated In Benin

While the trial was pending, the Legal Remembrancer, Judicial Department, issued an order dated 26 February 2021 instructing withdrawal of the sessions case under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This order was challenged before the Calcutta High Court, and the trial was transferred to a court in Kolkata with a Special Public Prosecutor appointed. During this period, the accused sought bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the courts referred to the gravity of the allegations and assertions of witness intimidation. Bail was granted with conditions confining the accused to Kolkata and requiring police station attendance, leading to applications by the victim’s side for cancellation and by the accused for modification of those conditions.

The Court first addressed the plea for cancellation of bail, recording that “The application for cancellation of bail at the instance of Afjal seems to be more of a retaliatory response to Anisur’s application for modification of bail condition rather than a genuine effort to further project before this Court how Anisur has breached the terms and conditions of bail… It has, however, not been shown how a breach has occasioned… we do not consider any useful purpose being served by cancelling the bail granted in favour of Anisur. The application for cancellation of bail, thus, stands rejected.”

Turning to the modification request, the Bench noted the timing of the fresh application, stating that “The present application has been filed on 8th August, 2025, i.e., a couple of months after His Lordship demitted office… The purpose is not far to seek. We perceive this to be an attempt to take a chance because of the changed scenario.”

It then set out the principle of finality, observing that “Though elementary, it requires restatement that it is fundamental to the rule of law to maintain the sanctity and finality of judicial verdicts… The strength of judicial power lies less in the hope of perfection and more in the confidence that decisions, once made, are settled… ‘We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final’.”

On what it termed a growing trend, the Court recorded that “In the recent past, we have rather painfully observed a growing trend in this Court (of which we too are an indispensable part) of verdicts pronounced by Judges, whether still in office or not and irrespective of the time lapse since pronounced, being overturned by succeeding benches or specially constituted benches at the behest of some party aggrieved by the verdicts prior in point of time.”

Explaining Article 141, it stated that “the pronouncement of a verdict by a bench on a particular issue of law… should settle the controversy, being final… However, if a verdict is allowed to be reopened because a later different view appears to be better, the very purpose of enacting Article 141 would stand defeated… A matter that is res integra may not be reopened or revisited or else consistency in legal interpretation could be compromised and the special authority that is invested in decisions of this Court, under Article 141, lost… overturning a prior verdict by a later verdict does not necessarily mean that justice is better served.”

Applying these principles, the Bench stated that “we propose not to walk that path… Any restrictive order of the nature under consideration has to be and must be premised on some worthy reason… Judicial discipline, propriety and comity… demand that a subsequent bench of different combination defers to the view expressed by the earlier bench…” and concluded that “The very purpose of the order granting bail, in this case, would stand frustrated if the condition requiring Anisur not to leave Kolkata were modified… If any modification of such condition is made now and thereby the stringency relaxed, that would not only amount to overstepping the order of this Court granting bail but would send a wrong message of this Court being unconcerned with the principle of finality of judicial decisions… there being no significant change in circumstances warranting a reconsideration, we see no reason to interfere.”

The Court directed: "Having limited our examination to that part of the order dated 21st November, 2025 whereby reference has been made to the Legal Remembrancer, we interfere and set aside such reference." The Special Public Prosecutor is encouraged to continue conducting the trial on behalf of the prosecution with fairness, integrity and diligence."

Also Read: Forgery Under Section 465 IPC Not Dependent On Financial Loss: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction For Forged University Certificates, Notes Non-Pecuniary Harm To Academic Credibility

"The Sessions Court is directed to deal with all applications that might be filed by the parties on its own merits. This order may not be construed as restricting Anisur from raising legitimate objections during the trial, which the Sessions Court will decide as per law. The Sessions Court may conclude the trial, in accordance with law, without being overly concerned about the previous timelines set by this Court."

For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, AOR Mr. Shreyash Kaushal, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Rao Raj Bahadur Singh, Adv. Mr. A. Sai Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Gururaj C.B., Adv. Mr. Arimardhan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR

Case Title: SK. MD. ANISUR RAHAMAN VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.; AFJAL ALI SHA @ ABJAL SHAUKAT SHA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1360
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.43/2025; Criminal Appeal No.43/2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih