Supreme Court: Filing Of Fresh Bail Application After Rejection Of Earlier Bail Plea Or Cancellation Of Bail Is A Matter Of Right

 The earlier bail application of the appellant was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 03.10.2023. However, the said order was set aside by this Court. Thereafter, the appellant applied afresh for bail before the High Court and the said application was rejected solely on the ground that Supreme Court of India while canceling the bail granted by the High Court, had not given any liberty to the appellant to file a fresh bail application.

{Para 3}

4. There is no prohibition in filing a fresh bail application after the earlier was rejected or cancelled, if granted. This Court in canceling the bail application has not taken away the right of the appellant to apply for bail afresh, if the circumstances permit.

5. Filing of a fresh bail application, once an earlier bail application has been rejected or if granted and thereafter cancelled is a matter of right and solely on the ground that the Apex Court had not permitted filing of the fresh bail application, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the bail application.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2025

Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and S.V. Bhatti, JJ.

Date of Order: 13.02.2025

Citation:  MANU/SCOR/19612/2025

Print Page

basic principle for cancellation of bail

Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. The fact that prosecution witnesses have turned hostile cannot by itself justify the inference that the accused has won them over. The objective fact that witnesses have turned hostile must be shown to bear a causal connection with the subjective involvement therein of the respondent. Without such proof, a bail once granted cannot be cancelled on the off chance or on the supposition that witnesses have been won over by the accused. Inconsistent testimony can no more be ascribed by itself to the influence of the accused than consistent testimony, by itself, can be ascribed to the pressure of the prosecution. It is therefore necessary for the prosecution to show some act or conduct on the part of the respondent from which a reasonable inference may arise that the witnesses have gone back on their statements as a result of an intervention by or on behalf of the respondent.

5.It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove by a mathematical certainty or even beyond a reasonable doubt that the witnesses have turned hostile because they are won over by the accused. The issue of cancellation of bail can only arise in criminal cases, but that does not mean that every incidental matter in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt like the guilt of the accused. Indeed, proof of facts by preponderance

of probabilities as in a civil case is not foreign to criminal jurisprudence because, in cases where the statute raises a presumption of guilt as, for, example, the Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused is entitled to rebut that presumption by proving his defence by a balance of probabilities. He does not have to establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard of proof as in a civil case applies to proof of incidental issues involved in a criminal trial like the cancellation of bail of an accused. The prosecution, therefore, can establish its case in an application for cancellation of bail by showing on a preponderance of probabilities that the accused has attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses. Proving by the test of balance of probabilities that the accused has abused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice is all that is necessary for the prosecution to do in order to succeed in an application for cancellation of bail.

Supreme Court of India

State Through Delhi ... vs Sanjay Gandhi on 5 May, 1978

Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 961, 1978 SCR (3) 950

Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V.

Print Page