Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted to Accused Who Absconded 42 Days After Earlier Bail Cancellation
A Division Bench cancels bail granted by the Allahabad High Court, finding the order ignored a prior Supreme Court cancellation, the accused's absconding, and CCTV-backed firearm evidence.
The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to one Jeeshan, an accused in a witness-intimidation and attempted murder case arising from Meerut district, Uttar Pradesh. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in a judgment dated 22 May 2026, found the High Court's order of 22 September 2025 to be perverse on multiple counts: it made no reference to the Supreme Court's own earlier bail cancellation order of 27 January 2025, it ignored Jeeshan's conduct in absconding for approximately 42 days after that cancellation, and it failed to engage with CCTV footage, eyewitness accounts, and the recovery of a country-made pistol at the accused's instance. The Court directed Jeeshan to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith.
How the Dispute Reached the Court
The case has its roots in the murder of the appellant Mohseen's brother, Aamir, for which FIR No. 143/2023 was registered at Police Station Partapur, District Meerut, under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The co-accused in that murder case, Aabaad and Aurangzeb, were subsequently convicted on 12 November 2025 and sentenced to life imprisonment on 14 November 2025. They were also convicted under the Gangsters Act on 1 November 2025 and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.
On 27 February 2024, while Mohseen was attending proceedings in the murder case before the Trial Court at Meerut, Aabaad and Aurangzeb threatened him within the court premises itself because he had refused to compromise in the murder case. An FIR under Section 506 IPC was registered in connection with that episode.
The present proceedings arise from a separate incident on 12 May 2024 at approximately 4:30 PM. Mohseen's uncle Rihan and his cousin Afsar were returning home from a neighbouring village when Aurangzeb, Aabaad, Jeeshan (Respondent No. 2), Arbaz and Shahnawaz intercepted them on the road. The accused demanded that the family withdraw the murder case, abused and threatened them, and then assaulted them with lathi, danda, knife and a country-made pistol. When the victims fled towards their homes, the accused followed and forcibly entered the premises, continuing the assault. This incident was registered as FIR No. 179/2024 at Police Station Partapur, District Meerut, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 and 307 IPC and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
CCTV footage from cameras near the location showed Jeeshan arriving on a motorcycle, entering his house, retrieving a country-made pistol, brandishing it on the road, and then going to the roof of an adjacent house, after which the sound of multiple gunshots was recorded. Eyewitnesses including Saheba, Adil, Afsar and the victim Rihan deposed that Jeeshan fired at them with intent to kill, though no firearm injuries resulted. In his statement to the Investigating Officer, Jeeshan admitted to taking the pistol from his house, firing several rounds from the roof, collecting the empty cartridges to destroy evidence, and then concealing the pistol and cartridges beneath a brick in a ruined building. A .315 bore pistol in working condition and a live cartridge, both wrapped in foil and concealed in grass behind a wall, were recovered at his instance.
Jeeshan's anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Allahabad High Court on 11 September 2024, the Single Judge expressly holding that a prima facie case was made out. After his arrest, a regular bail application was allowed on 23 October 2024 on the ground that only a “vague and general role” had been assigned to him. Mohseen challenged that order before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 18256/2024. The Court, by a speaking order dated 27 January 2025, found the High Court had committed a grave error, set aside the bail, and directed Jeeshan to surrender forthwith.
Jeeshan did not surrender. The Trial Court issued a Non-Bailable Warrant on 10 February 2025. Police raids at his residence and other likely locations failed to trace him. Proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were initiated on 28 February 2025. He ultimately surrendered on 10 March 2025 — approximately 42 days after the Supreme Court's cancellation order. His second bail application before the Trial Court was rejected on 19 May 2025, the court noting the serious nature of the offence, the evidence on record, and the likelihood of absconding and tampering with evidence. He then moved the Allahabad High Court again, which granted bail on 22 September 2025. Mohseen, the informant and an eyewitness in his brother's murder case, challenged that order before the Supreme Court.
What the High Court Did and Why the Supreme Court Found It Wanting
The High Court's impugned order rested on three grounds: a seven-hour delay in lodging the FIR; the absence of firearm injuries despite the allegation of firing; and the fact that co-accused Aurangzeb had been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench.
The Supreme Court found each of these grounds inadequate and identified a more fundamental defect: the High Court's order made no reference whatsoever to the Supreme Court's order of 27 January 2025 cancelling Jeeshan's first bail. The Court held that while there is no absolute bar against a High Court granting bail to an accused whose bail was previously cancelled by the Supreme Court, any such grant must be supported by reasons demonstrating either a change in circumstances or the existence of fresh grounds not considered at the time of cancellation. The impugned order identified neither.
On the question of Jeeshan's post-cancellation conduct, the Court held that his failure to surrender, the issuance of an NBW, and the initiation of Section 82 CrPC proceedings were all material factors that the High Court had entirely ignored. The Court rejected the argument that the pendency of a Review Petition justified the delay in surrendering, observing that the filing of a Review Petition does not operate as an automatic stay upon the original order.
On the absence of firearm injuries, the Court reiterated the settled position on Section 307 IPC: what the provision requires is the doing of an act with intent or knowledge that it can cause death. If an accused fires a weapon at a victim with the intent to kill, but the victims escape by chance, the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. The absence of injuries does not negate the charge.
The Parity Argument and Why It Failed
The High Court's reliance on parity with co-accused Aurangzeb was, in the Supreme Court's view, manifestly erroneous. The Court identified three reasons why the two accused were not identically placed.
First, the role attributed to Aurangzeb in FIR No. 179/2024 was primarily assault by knife, whereas the specific role attributed to Jeeshan was firing with a country-made pistol. Second, the recovery of a .315 bore pistol and live cartridge at Jeeshan's instance, and the consequent addition of offences under Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, further distinguished his case. Third, the SLP filed by Mohseen challenging Aurangzeb's bail (SLP (Crl.) No. 16404/2025) had been withdrawn on 21 November 2025 because Aurangzeb had by then been convicted in the murder case and the Gangsters Act case. The Court was explicit that a dismissal-as-withdrawn is not a dismissal on merits and creates no precedent in favour of Jeeshan.
The Court drew on Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508, for the proposition that the principle of parity in bail is not an inflexible rule and cannot be mechanically applied when the roles of the accused persons are materially different.
The Broader Context: Witness Intimidation
The Court declined to view the incident in isolation. As it appeared from the record, the offence was not an isolated event but a premeditated attempt to terrorise Mohseen and his family members, who are eyewitnesses and victims in the murder case of Mohseen's brother, and to coerce them into withdrawing or compromising in that case. The Court cited Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2021) 4 SCC 781, for the principle that courts must recognise the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims and witnesses if an accused is released on bail.
The Court also drew on Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, for the requirement that bail orders must reveal the factors that weighed with the court, and that a mere recitation of “the facts and circumstances of the case” without more does not constitute a reasoned order. The eight-factor framework from Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, covering matters such as the prima facie case, gravity of accusation, severity of punishment, danger of absconding, likelihood of the offence being repeated, and reasonable apprehension of witness influence, was set out as the standard the High Court had failed to apply.
The Court found that the impugned order failed to engage with: the Supreme Court's order of 27 January 2025; Jeeshan's conduct in absconding and the Section 82 CrPC proceedings; the CCTV evidence and the recovery of the pistol at his instance; and the rejection of the second bail application by the Trial Court. Relying on Ajwar v. Waseem & Anr., (2024) 10 SCC 768, the Court held that an unreasoned or perverse bail order is always open to interference by a superior court, and that bail can be revoked where courts below have ignored relevant material on record or the gravity of the offence.
Order
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal. The impugned order dated 22 September 2025 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18594 of 2025 was set aside and the bail granted to Jeeshan was cancelled. Jeeshan was directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith. The Court further directed that if he fails to surrender, the Trial Court shall take necessary steps including issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant to secure his custody. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.