1) Supreme Court: Order Granting Bail In Second Round Must Record Change In Circumstances Or Fresh Grounds
While there is no absolute bar against a High Court granting bail to an accused whose bail was previously cancelled by this Court, the grant of bail must be supported by reasons demonstrating either a change in circumstances or the existence of fresh grounds not considered by this Court at the time of cancellation. {Para 24}
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). _____ OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.16696 of 2025)
MOHSEEN Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
& ANR.
Author: NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 526.
Dated: MAY 22, 2026.2) Supreme Court: Whether the court should release accused prosecuted for grave offence if his name is not mentioned in inquest report?
The requirement of the section is that the police
officer shall record the apparent cause of death
describing the wounds as may be found on the body and
also the weapon or instrument by which they appear to
have been inflicted and this has to be done in the
presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the
neighbourhood. The section does not contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or the names of the accused should be mentioned in the inquest report. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery etc.”
14. Thus, non-mentioning of the author of the crime or
the person who had caused the death in the inquest report cannot, by itself, be a reason to doubt the involvement of the accused, who may be subsequently named. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference merely because the informant-Appellant and another Panch witness had not made any allegations against the Respondent No. 2 at the stage of inquest proceedings. The judicial discretion to grant bail, though undoubtedly wide, is nevertheless required to be exercised in a judicious and reasoned manner by adverting to the settled parameters governing the grant of bail, particularly where the accusations are grave in nature.
15. Even assuming that the High Court could have taken
into consideration the non-mentioning of Respondent No. 2
during the inquest proceedings, the same could not have
been viewed in isolation while ignoring the other materials
collected during the investigation. The specific overt act
attributed to Respondent No. 2 in the FIR, the chargesheet,
the post-mortem report corroborating the prosecution’s
version, the recovery of the alleged weapon at the instance
of Respondent No. 2, as well as the statements of the
witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, constituted material
circumstances which required due consideration. In our
considered view, the aforesaid materials, which prima facie implicate Respondent No. 2, could not have been brushed aside solely on account of the alleged omission during the inquest proceedings.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 4240 of 2026)
BHAGAT SINGH Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ANR.
Dated: MAY 22, 2026.
Citation: 2026 INSC 5273) Supreme Court: What are considerations for grant of bail in case of offence by unlawful assembly?
In this backdrop, clearly, the approach adopted by the High Court at the stage of considering bail recording that the prosecution was required to indicate the individual role of the Accused in the incident, and that failure to do so, entitled the Respondents-Accused to bail, is erroneous on the face of record. 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. {Para 27}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1100 of 2026
Decided On: 23.02.2026
Shobha Namdev Sonavane Vs. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 181,MANU/SC/0176/20264) Supreme Court: Accused in a private complaint case need not apply for anticipatory bail, unless a non-bailable warrant is issued by trial court
Anticipatory bail — Maintainability of in private complaint cases - Legality of — Held, Court may reject anticipatory bail but has no jurisdiction to direct surrender of accused — Further held, accused in a private complaint case need not pray for anticipatory bail, unless a non-bailable warrant is issued by that Court along with the summons
In the Supreme Court of India
(Before J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.)
Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash
Chabnika alias Om Prakash Chawnika
Vs
State of Jharkhand and Another
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16221/2025 and ABA No. 2319/2025
Decided on April 23, 2026
Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676
5) Supreme Court: Under which circumstances the court can release accused on bail even after commencement of trial?
It's been almost nine years that the petitioner is in judicial
custody as an under-trial prisoner. {Para 7}
8. What is most disappointing is what has been observed by the High Court in Para 8.
9. Para 8 reads thus:
“The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024 INSC 909 has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.”
10. It appears that the High Court has not been able to understand the true purport and ratio of the decision of this Court, referred to, in para 8. All that the High Court ought to have considered is the fact that the petitioner is languishing in jail as an undertrial prisoner past nine years. What more was required for the High Court to consider the plea of the petitioner for bail, keeping his right of speedy trial in mind as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7416/2026
VAIBHAV SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(IA No. 125028/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 29-04-2026
6) Supreme Court : Bail condition restricting accused from residing his house should be imposed for limited time period in exceptional circumstances
The High Court, while granting bail to the appellant has imposed several conditions apart from the condition that restricts his right of residence during the pendency of the trial, noted above. Furthermore, the appellant is also restricted from changing his address without informing the concerned Investigating Officer/Station House Officer. This condition has left the appellant aggrieved.
19. Section 168, BNSS (earlier Section 149, Cr. PC) casts a vital duty on the police to prevent the commission of cognisable offence and empowers them to take preventive action. Courts ought to remind the police of this statutory obligation and ensure that it is duly performed. A condition of bail such as the one imposed here, however, shifts the burden to the accused and thereby weakens the State’s obligation to prevent crime. This is not to suggest that an accused on bail is free to commit offences. He remains bound by the conditions of bail and by the law. Yet, any condition that curtails fundamental rights must be justified by circumstances that necessitate such restriction.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL N os.2168-2169/2 026
SACHIN YADAV Vs STATE (NCT of DELHI) & ANR.
Dated: April 29, 2026.7) Supreme Court: S.480(3) BNSS Bail Conditions Not Applicable To Offences Punishable Up To 7 Yrs Imprisonment
In the facts of the present case, since the punishment for subsequent offence is less than five years, the conditions as stipulated in Section 480(3) BNSS are not imposable. Therefore, at present, cancellation of bail on account of involvement in the subsequent offence solely based on Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, is not justified.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7011 of 2026)
NARAYAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dated: April 22, 2026.8) Supreme Court: The court should not order of Sale Of Accused's Property As Bail Condition
This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.1741/2023 @ of SLP (Crl.) No.2358/2023 decided on 04.07.2023 has opined or in other words expressly deprecated the practice of imposing such conditions and observed "the Court should refrain from imposing the conditions which have no nexus with the object of granting bail and bail proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings". In fact, it has been held by this Court that bail condition must be regulatory and not punitive or determinative, as such ordering of sale of property as a bail condition is in the nature of a final civil relief which affect the property rights cannot be sustained. {Para 7}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal Nos. .../2026 @ Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No. 6155/2026,
Date of Order: 13.04.2026
Feroze Basha and Ors. Vs. State Of Tamil Nadu
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale, JJ.
Citation: MANU/SCOR/25261/20269) Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Same/Next-Day Release Of Prisoners Granted Bail, Acquittal Or Sentence Suspension
To that end, and in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we hereby issue the following comprehensive guidelines, which shall hereafter operate as binding directions upon all High Courts across the country:
I. Timelines
a. In a matter where the judgement is reserved, the High
Court shall endeavour to pronounce a reasoned
judgement promptly, within a maximum period of 3
months from the date of reserving such judgement.
b. The High Courts shall display extra promptitude in pronouncing judgements and orders in matters of personal liberty, e.g. regular bail, anticipatory bail, criminal appeals (where the convict is in custody), death references, etc.
c. As soon as the bail application is heard, the order should preferably be pronounced and uploaded on the same day. In the event the order is reserved, it is expected to be pronounced on the next day and uploaded to the website.
d. Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is pronounced.
e. Consequent upon the outcome of serial number (d) above, the undertrial/convict must be released on the same day or, at most, on the next day, unless they are required to be taken in custody in another case, or there is a delay in complying with the bail conditions, etc.
f. The compliance with the order must be reported by the Trial Court to the Bench of the High Court that passed the order. {Para 16}
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL / CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 169 / 2025
Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others Vs State of Jharkhand and another
Author: SURYA KANT, CJI.
Citation: 2026 INSC 604
Dated: MAY 29, 2026
Saturday, 6 June 2026
Important Supreme Court Judgments on bail 2026
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment