Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has set aside a High Court order that cancelled the bail granted to an accused by the Sessions Court in a case involving allegations of attempted murder. The Court found that the High Court did not refer to any violation of bail conditions or any misconduct by the accused that would warrant revocation of bail. The Supreme Court observed that bail once granted should not be cancelled without valid reasons and emphasized that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without justifiable grounds. The accused was directed to be released on bail on the same terms and conditions as imposed by the Sessions Court.

The case originated from an FIR registered on June 4, 2022, at Police Station Kot-Kehloor, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. The accused was charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly assaulting the complainant with an axe, causing a head injury. The accused was arrested on the same day, and the investigation proceeded with the framing of charges. The prosecution listed 43 witnesses, of whom 17 had been examined at the time of the bail application.

After being in custody for two years, the accused applied for bail before the Sessions Court. In an order dated August 28, 2024, the Sessions Court granted bail, citing the prolonged incarceration and the stage of the trial. The complainant subsequently approached the High Court seeking cancellation of bail, which was allowed by the High Court on January 3, 2025.

The High Court cancelled the bail, stating that the presence of the accused at the crime scene and his role in inflicting injury on the complainant were undisputed. It further held that the accused had acted in common intention with others, attracting liability under Section 34 IPC. The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ajwar v. Waseem and Anr. (2024), which laid down factors that courts should consider while deciding on bail cancellation. These factors include whether the accused misused bail, attempted to delay the trial, influenced witnesses, tampered with evidence, or if any supervening circumstances had arisen after the grant of bail. However, the High Court did not specifically find any such factors applicable in this case.

The Supreme Court examined the High Court’s order and found that it had not identified any act of the accused post-bail that justified cancellation. The Court stated, "The High Court has not referred to any single act of the appellant, post grant of bail, which could give rise to formation of an opinion that any of the terms and conditions of bail have been violated." The Court further observed that despite quoting the relevant legal principles from Ajwar v. Waseem and Anr., the High Court did not apply them properly in this case.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had effectively conducted a "mini-trial" at the bail cancellation stage, which was beyond the scope of such proceedings. The Court recorded, "Instead, what the High Court did was to embark upon conducting sort of a mini-trial at the stage of considering whether the bail should be cancelled or not." It found that the High Court's reasoning, based on the presence of the accused at the crime scene and the nature of the injury caused, was unrelated to the question of whether the accused had violated bail conditions or misused his liberty.

The Supreme Court stated the principle that bail cancellation must be based on objective considerations, stating, "Liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered." It held that there was no material before the High Court to suggest that the accused had engaged in conduct warranting bail cancellation, such as influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or delaying the trial.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order cancelling bail. It restored the Sessions Court’s order dated August 28, 2024, and directed that the accused be released on bail under the same terms and conditions. The Court stated that its observations in the judgment should not be treated as findings on the merits of the case. The accused was instructed to appear before the trial court on scheduled dates unless granted an exemption, and any violation of bail conditions would allow the trial court to revoke bail.

Case Title: Kailash Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 861/2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan

[Read/Download order]