Supreme Court: Delay or Criminal Antecedents Alone Cannot Cancel Bail

Case Title: Abhimanue Etc.  Vs. State of Kerala ...
The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between bail cancellation and revocation, emphasizing that revocation is permissible if the initial bail order was perverse or illegal. The Court reiterated that while ensuring a fair trial is paramount, the principle of “bail, not jail” prevails, and stringent conditions can adequately mitigate risks of witness tampering or evidence influence.

Facts Of The Case:

A First Information Report was registered on 19th December 2021 against unknown persons for offences including murder, following the death of a victim who was allegedly followed and brutally attacked by a group due to political enmity. The appellants, identified as activists of a political organization, were subsequently arrested. In December 2022, after nearly a year in custody, the trial court granted them bail. The State’s application for bail cancellation was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge in April 2024. The State then approached the Kerala High Court, which, in December 2024, set aside the bail orders for five appellants. The High Court found the Sessions Court’s grant of bail to be mechanical, lacking consideration for the crime’s gravity and the risk of witness tampering. Aggrieved, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the maintainability of the State’s application and arguing no misconduct occurred during their bail period. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the heinous nature of the allegations, set aside the High Court’s order, ruling that the prolonged period of liberty without violation, coupled with stringent conditions, could sufficiently safeguard the trial’s integrity.

Procedural History:

The procedural history of the case began with the grant of bail to the appellants by the trial court in December 2022. The State’s application for cancellation of this bail was subsequently rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 5th April 2024. The State of Kerala then filed petitions before the Kerala High Court, which, in its impugned judgment and order dated 11th December 2024, set aside the bail orders of the five appellants. Challenging this revocation, the appellants filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after granting leave, heard the appeals and, vide its judgment dated 22nd September 2025, allowed them by setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the appellants’ bail, subject to stringent conditions.

READ ALSO:Supreme Court Rules: Promotion Cannot Be Denied Due to Illegal Departmental Proceedings

Court Observation:

The Supreme Court made several key observations in its judgment. It distinguished between the cancellation of bail, which is based on an accused’s post-bail conduct, and the revocation of a bail order, which is warranted if the initial order was perverse, illegal, or passed on irrelevant considerations. The Court found that while the Sessions Court’s bail order was mechanical, the High Court should have remitted the matter for fresh consideration instead of outright revocation, especially since the appellants had been on bail for nearly two years without any significant misuse of liberty. It held that criminal antecedents alone are not a conclusive ground for denying bail and emphasized that the fundamental principle of “bail being the rule and jail an exception” must be balanced against the need for a fair trial. Ultimately, the Court concluded that imposing stringent conditions was sufficient to address concerns of witness intimidation and evidence tampering.

Final Decision & Judgement:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court. Consequently, the bail granted to the appellants was restored, subject to stringent conditions imposed by the Supreme Court to ensure a fair trial. These conditions include barring their entry into the district of Alappuzha except for trial attendance, mandatory presence marking at a police station, and a strict prohibition against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and authorized it to cancel the bail in the event of any breach of the stipulated conditions.

Case Details:

Case Title: Abhimanue Etc.  Vs. State of Kerala ...
Citation: 2025 INSC 1136
Criminal Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 4197-4199 of 2025 
Date of Judgement: September 22, 2025
Judges/Justice Name: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *