Supreme Court: In a batch of criminal appeals arising from a common order granting regular bail to accused persons in a murder case involving an alleged armed mob attack, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., set aside the grant of bail to 3 accused, holding that the High Court had erred in enlarging all the respondent-accused on bail without individually adverting to their distinct roles and criminal antecedents. Observing that the offence was of an exceptionally grave nature, involving an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons which culminated in the death of the deceased and injuries to the complainant, the Court held that period of incarceration and delay in trial, though relevant considerations, could not constitute the sole or determinative basis for grant of bail in such circumstances.
The Court emphasised that criminal antecedents are a material factor bearing directly on the likelihood of an accused abiding by bail conditions, refraining from repeating offences, or desisting from intimidating witnesses, and therefore must weigh heavily while considering bail. While cancelling the bail granted to Respondents 2, 3 and 5 in view of their active role in the occurrence and multiple antecedents involving serious offences, the Court declined to interfere with the bail granted to Respondent 4, noting the absence of any specific overt act attributed to him and the lack of criminal antecedents on record.
Background
An FIR bearing No. 140 dated 13 September 2023 was registered at Police Station Nangal under Sections 302, 307, 324, 506, 148 and 149, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25, 45 and 59, Arms Act, 1959, with additional offences under Sections 482, 427 and 201 IPC being added during investigation. According to the prosecution, on 12 September 2023, the deceased, Manjinder Singh, was attacked by the accused persons while visiting his wife (the appellant), who was undergoing treatment in a hospital. It was alleged that the accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, including swords, kirpans and pistols, and inflicted multiple injuries upon the deceased, resulting in his death. The post-mortem report recorded 13 injuries on the deceased’s body. The appellant was also allegedly assaulted when she attempted to intervene. The prosecution further alleged that one of the accused attempted to fire at the deceased, causing firearm injuries to his shoulder and arm, while the assailants also damaged the deceased’s vehicle and removed the hospital’s CCTV DVR.
During investigation, specific roles were attributed to the respondent-accused, including active participation in the assault, use of firearms and deadly weapons, and recovery of a kirpan from one of the accused. A charge-sheet was filed on 7 December 2023 and charges were framed on 8 April 2024. The trial court rejected the respondents’ applications for regular bail, noting their alleged involvement in the offence and the gravity of the accusations. However, by a common order dated 19 September 2025, the High Court granted regular bail to the respondents primarily on the ground that they had undergone nearly 2 years of incarceration and that only 3 out of 30 prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating slow progress of the trial. The High Court also observed that the delay in trial was attributable to the prosecution, particularly as the complainant had been examined only after issuance of bailable warrants.
Analysis
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail to all the respondent-accused through a common order without individually adverting to the distinct role attributed to each accused and their respective criminal antecedents. The Court observed that the offence was of an exceptionally grave nature, involving an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to the appellant. It noted that Respondents 2, 3 and 5 were attributed specific and active roles in the assault and carried multiple criminal antecedents involving serious offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, among others. Despite this material being placed before the High Court, it remained conspicuously unaddressed in the impugned order.
The Court held that while the period of incarceration and delay in trial are relevant considerations, they cannot serve as the sole or determinative basis for grant of bail in a case involving the alleged killing of a person by an armed mob. Criminal antecedents, the Court emphasised, bear directly on the likelihood of an accused abiding by bail conditions, refraining from repeating offences, or intimidating witnesses.
Decision
Finding that the High Court failed to individualise its reasoning and adequately weigh the gravity of the offence, the specific roles attributed to Respondents 2, 3 and 5, and their considerable criminal antecedents, the Court set aside the grant of bail in their favour and directed them to surrender within 4 weeks.
However, the Court distinguished the case of Respondent 4, noting that he was not specifically named in the FIR, no overt act had been attributed to him, his implication rested primarily on disclosure statements and recovery of a kirpan, and no criminal antecedents were brought on record against him. Having regard to the totality of circumstances and the relatively peripheral nature of allegations against him, the Court declined to interfere with the bail granted to Respondent 4, while clarifying that its observations were confined to the question of bail and would not affect the merits of the trial.
Also Read: Right to Speedy Trial Violation Justifies Bail Even in Murder Cases | SCC Times
Also Read: SC UAPA Verdict Decoded: Bail is Rule & Gulfisha Fatima Concerns | SCC Times
[Rajni v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1050, decided on 20-5-2026]
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
