Parameters governing appellate interference with an order granting bail (as opposed to cancellation of bail)

General
1

Case note for Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Supreme Court of India, 2025) judgment:

Case Note

Case Name: Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Coram: Sanjay Karol, J. and Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Citation: 2025 INSC 974
Date of Judgment: 13 August 2025
Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3495 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 5370 of 2025)

Facts

  • The complainant appealed against the Delhi High Court order (4 March 2025) granting regular bail to Sushil Kumar (Respondent No. 2), in FIR No. 218/2021 under multiple IPC sections including 302 (murder), 308, 325, and under Arms Act provisions.

  • Prosecution Allegations:

    • On night of 4–5 May 2021, accused and associates abducted multiple persons, assaulted them with sticks and fired gunshots at Chhatrasal Stadium.
    • Victim Sagar died due to cerebral damage from blunt force injuries.
    • Bloodstained articles, weapons, and a loaded gun were recovered; video evidence allegedly showed the accused in the assault.
    • Accused was absconding; NBWs issued; cash reward announced; arrested on 23 May 2021.
    • Out of 189 witnesses, 35 examined; 28 turned hostile.
    • Other 21 accused remained in custody.

Procedural History

  • Trial ongoing for offences under IPC (302, 307, 308, 364, 365, 452, 323, 342) and Arms Act.
  • High Court granted regular bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
  • Complainant challenged the bail order in the Supreme Court, supported by the State.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court’s grant of bail to the accused was legally sustainable.
  2. What parameters govern appellate interference with an order granting bail (as opposed to cancellation of bail).

Contentions

  • Appellant/State:

    • High Court ignored the seriousness of allegations, the accused’s influence, and his conduct (absconding, threats to witnesses).
    • Pattern of witnesses turning hostile when accused was on temporary bail.

  • Respondent/Accused:

    • Bail granted correctly; no misuse of earlier interim bail; evidence did not warrant continued custody.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

  • Distinction: Setting aside bail ≠ cancellation of bail. The former examines the correctness of the order at the time of grant; the latter looks at post-bail conduct/supervening circumstances.

  • Law Restated:

    • From Jayaben, Y v. State of Rajasthan, Meena Devi, State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh, etc.:

      • Order granting bail must show application of mind to relevant factors: nature/gravity of offence, role of accused, prima facie case, potential to tamper with evidence, societal impact, flight risk.
      • An unreasoned or perverse bail order can be set aside even without post-bail misconduct.
      • Appeals against bail must not be retaliatory but based on illegality/perversity.

  • Application to Facts:

    • High Court failed to consider:

      • Seriousness and brutality of the crime (abduction, assault, murder).
      • Recovery of weapons, firearm, and video evidence.
      • Accused’s abscondence and evasion of arrest.
      • His influence as a celebrated Olympian and potential to intimidate witnesses.
      • Allegations (and pattern) of witnesses turning hostile when he was on temporary bail.

    • These were material and relevant to the bail decision but omitted from the High Court’s reasoning.

Decision

  • Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s bail order.
  • Directed the accused to surrender within one week.
  • Clarified that accused may reapply for bail upon change in circumstances, to be considered afresh on merits.
  • Observations are confined to bail issue; trial court to decide case independently.

Key Legal Principles Evolved

  1. Bail Grant vs. Bail Cancellation: Different legal thresholds; appellate court can set aside perverse/illegal bail orders without relying on post-bail events.
  2. Bail Parameters: Must consider gravity, role, prima facie case, societal impact, potential for tampering, criminal antecedents, and flight risk.
  3. Influence of Accused: High-profile status can be relevant to potential intimidation of witnesses.
  4. Reasoned Orders: Bail orders must disclose consideration of all relevant factors; omission can render them unsustainable.