Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 98
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.541 OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO.4713 OF 2025]
USMAN ALI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal calls in question the order dated 22.1.2025 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directing release of respondent
No.2/Rinku Bhardwaj @ Prakash Rajbhar on bail who is an accused in
First Information Report/Case Crime No.238 of 2018 registered at Police
Station – Chopan, District – Sonbhadra under Sections 147, 148, 149,
1
302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.
3. Vide order dated 19.05.2025, this Court has appointed
Shri Abhishek Mohan Goel, learned counsel, as Amicus Curiae (Pro Bono)
to assist the Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MINI
Date: 2026.01.30
16:40:25 IST
Reason:
1
For short, “the IPC”
CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.4713/2025 Page 1 of 6
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well
as the learned Amicus Curiae.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that
respondent No.2 is a dreaded criminal with huge local influence and is
involved in the murder of a Chairman in a broad daylight using
panchayat
prohibited automatic weapons which was carried out at the behest of
respondent No.2. It is further argued that respondent No.2 hired Kashmir
Paswan for the assassination of the deceased victim. Respondent No.2
was absconding after the incident and could be arrested after a joint
operation of the Special Task Force, Uttar Pradesh and the Anti-Terror
Squad (STF), Kolkata, West Bengal. It is further argued that respondent
No.2 has a long criminal history which has been ignored by the High
Court while directing his release on bail. It is argued that there is a
strong apprehension of threat to life of the appellant/informant. It is
further argued that correct facts were not placed before the High Court
which has led to incorrect observations in the impugned order and
particularly the criminal history and conduct of respondent No.2 have not
been considered.
6. According to the learned Amicus Curiae , the present is not a case
where this Court is considering a prayer for grant of bail, but the prayer is
for cancellation of bail. Referring to Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar alias
2 3
Polia and Another , Dolat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana ,
2
(2020) 2 SCC 118
3
(1995) 1 SCC 349
CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.4713/2025 Page 2 of 6
4
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others and Manjit
5
Prakash and Others vs. Shobha Devi and Another , it is argued by the
learned Amicus Curiae that the contours of cancellation of bail are strict
and a bail can only be cancelled in exceptional circumstances where the
situation demands passing of such an order. In the present case, the
facts are not as such which warrants cancellation of bail. Therefore,
according to the learned Amicus Curiae , the Appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
7. The incident occurred at about 6:00 a.m. on 25.10.2018 when the
deceased had gone for his daily exercise to Kasba Preetnagar, Chopan,
where he was fatally shot by unknown people. He was taken to the
hospital where he was declared dead. It is the case of the prosecution
that while on his way to the hospital, the deceased made a statement that
he was attacked by one Rakesh Jaiswal and one Ravi Jalan in connivance
with many others. An FIR was registered against Rakesh Jaiswal, Ravi
Jalan and four unknown attackers. The alleged assailant – Kashmir
Paswan was arrested by Police and on his disclosure statement,
respondent No.2 was subsequently arrested on 27.12.2018. It is stated
that witnesses – Suresh Kumar Tau and Vineet Sharma, also stated in
their case diary statements that the deceased, before his death, made a
statement that respondent No.2 is also involved in the incident.
4
(2002) 3 SCC 598
5
(2009) 13 SCC 785
CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.4713/2025 Page 3 of 6
8. It is borne out from the record that co-accused - Dharamendra
Kumar and Arvind Kesari, have already been released on bail by the High
Court.
9. In the impugned order, it is recorded that the prosecution proposes
to examine 55 witnesses. However, only 13 witnesses including material
witnesses have been examined. The High Court has noted the arguments
raised on behalf of respondent No.2 that considering the congruency in
role, respondent No.2 sought parity with the relief granted to co-accused
Ravi Kumar Gupta who had been granted bail by the High Court on
16.07.2024. The High Court has also noted the arguments of respondent
No.2 explaining his criminal history.
10. Be it noted that respondent No.2 was not named in the FIR, but was
made an accused on the basis of the oral dying declaration of the
deceased and disclosure statement of the co-accused and that he has
suffered incarceration for a period of six and a half years in jail when the
impugned order was passed by the High Court. It is also to be noted that
co-accused in the same FIR has been granted bail by the High Court.
11. In Mahipal (supra), this Court held thus:
“ 14. The provision for an accused to be released on bail
touches upon the liberty of an individual. It is for this reason
that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with an order of
the High Court granting bail. However, where the discretion of
the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the
due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of
this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside.
The Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima
facie view that the accused had committed the offence, the
nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the
accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in any manner
or evading the course of justice. The provision for being
released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public
interest in the administration of justice and the protection of
CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.4713/2025 Page 4 of 6
individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However,
the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law
and in compliance with the conditions laid down by this Court.
It is for this reason that a court must balance numerous
factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to
grant bail on a case-by-case basis. Inherent in this
determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it
appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to
believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not
relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the
evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding.”
In Dolat Ram (supra), this Court opined thus:
“ 4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage
and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered
and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally
speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly
(illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to
interfere with the due course of administration of justice or
evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse
of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The
satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the
record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet
another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail
once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner
without considering whether any supervening circumstances
have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the
accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of
bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost
sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail,
already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked
the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-
bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail
already granted.”
12. Considering the matter on the anvil of law laid down by this Court
in Mahipal (supra) and Dolat Ram (supra), it is significant to mention
that respondent No.2 was not named in the FIR and was arrested
subsequently on the basis of the oral dying declaration of the deceased
and disclosure statement of the co-accused. He has suffered
incarceration for about six and a half years when the impugned order was
passed by the High Court. The High Court passed the impugned order on
CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.4713/2025 Page 5 of 6
22.01.2025 i.e., more than a year ago and there is no allegation that,
during this period, respondent No.2 has misused the liberty granted to
him. Thus, considering long pre-trial incarceration of respondent No.2
and the evidence against him, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the present is not a case where the discretion of grant of bail exercised by
the High Court in favour of respondent No.2 should be interfered.
Therefore, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby
dismissed.
.………………............................J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……..…………..........................J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 30, 2026.
CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.4713/2025 Page 6 of 6
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.541 OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO.4713 OF 2025]
USMAN ALI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal calls in question the order dated 22.1.2025 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directing release of respondent
No.2/Rinku Bhardwaj @ Prakash Rajbhar on bail who is an accused in
First Information Report/Case Crime No.238 of 2018 registered at Police
Station – Chopan, District – Sonbhadra under Sections 147, 148, 149,
1
302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.
3. Vide order dated 19.05.2025, this Court has appointed
Shri Abhishek Mohan Goel, learned counsel, as Amicus Curiae (Pro Bono)
to assist the Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MINI
Date: 2026.01.30
16:40:25 IST
Reason:
1
For short, “the IPC”
CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.4713/2025 Page 1 of 6
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well
as the learned Amicus Curiae.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that
respondent No.2 is a dreaded criminal with huge local influence and is
involved in the murder of a Chairman in a broad daylight using
panchayat
prohibited automatic weapons which was carried out at the behest of
respondent No.2. It is further argued that respondent No.2 hired Kashmir
Paswan for the assassination of the deceased victim. Respondent No.2
was absconding after the incident and could be arrested after a joint
operation of the Special Task Force, Uttar Pradesh and the Anti-Terror
Squad (STF), Kolkata, West Bengal. It is further argued that respondent
No.2 has a long criminal history which has been ignored by the High
Court while directing his release on bail. It is argued that there is a
strong apprehension of threat to life of the appellant/informant. It is
further argued that correct facts were not placed before the High Court
which has led to incorrect observations in the impugned order and
particularly the criminal history and conduct of respondent No.2 have not
been considered.
6. According to the learned Amicus Curiae , the present is not a case
where this Court is considering a prayer for grant of bail, but the prayer is
for cancellation of bail. Referring to Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar alias
2 3
Polia and Another , Dolat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana ,
2
(2020) 2 SCC 118
3
(1995) 1 SCC 349
CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.4713/2025 Page 2 of 6
4
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others and Manjit
5
Prakash and Others vs. Shobha Devi and Another , it is argued by the
learned Amicus Curiae that the contours of cancellation of bail are strict
and a bail can only be cancelled in exceptional circumstances where the
situation demands passing of such an order. In the present case, the
facts are not as such which warrants cancellation of bail. Therefore,
according to the learned Amicus Curiae , the Appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
7. The incident occurred at about 6:00 a.m. on 25.10.2018 when the
deceased had gone for his daily exercise to Kasba Preetnagar, Chopan,
where he was fatally shot by unknown people. He was taken to the
hospital where he was declared dead. It is the case of the prosecution
that while on his way to the hospital, the deceased made a statement that
he was attacked by one Rakesh Jaiswal and one Ravi Jalan in connivance
with many others. An FIR was registered against Rakesh Jaiswal, Ravi
Jalan and four unknown attackers. The alleged assailant – Kashmir
Paswan was arrested by Police and on his disclosure statement,
respondent No.2 was subsequently arrested on 27.12.2018. It is stated
that witnesses – Suresh Kumar Tau and Vineet Sharma, also stated in
their case diary statements that the deceased, before his death, made a
statement that respondent No.2 is also involved in the incident.
4
(2002) 3 SCC 598
5
(2009) 13 SCC 785
CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.4713/2025 Page 3 of 6
8. It is borne out from the record that co-accused - Dharamendra
Kumar and Arvind Kesari, have already been released on bail by the High
Court.
9. In the impugned order, it is recorded that the prosecution proposes
to examine 55 witnesses. However, only 13 witnesses including material
witnesses have been examined. The High Court has noted the arguments
raised on behalf of respondent No.2 that considering the congruency in
role, respondent No.2 sought parity with the relief granted to co-accused
Ravi Kumar Gupta who had been granted bail by the High Court on
16.07.2024. The High Court has also noted the arguments of respondent
No.2 explaining his criminal history.
10. Be it noted that respondent No.2 was not named in the FIR, but was
made an accused on the basis of the oral dying declaration of the
deceased and disclosure statement of the co-accused and that he has
suffered incarceration for a period of six and a half years in jail when the
impugned order was passed by the High Court. It is also to be noted that
co-accused in the same FIR has been granted bail by the High Court.
11. In Mahipal (supra), this Court held thus:
“ 14. The provision for an accused to be released on bail
touches upon the liberty of an individual. It is for this reason
that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with an order of
the High Court granting bail. However, where the discretion of
the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the
due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of
this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside.
The Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima
facie view that the accused had committed the offence, the
nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the
accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in any manner
or evading the course of justice. The provision for being
released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public
interest in the administration of justice and the protection of
CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.4713/2025 Page 4 of 6
individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However,
the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law
and in compliance with the conditions laid down by this Court.
It is for this reason that a court must balance numerous
factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to
grant bail on a case-by-case basis. Inherent in this
determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it
appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to
believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not
relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the
evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding.”
In Dolat Ram (supra), this Court opined thus:
“ 4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage
and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered
and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally
speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly
(illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to
interfere with the due course of administration of justice or
evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse
of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The
satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the
record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet
another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail
once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner
without considering whether any supervening circumstances
have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the
accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of
bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost
sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail,
already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked
the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-
bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail
already granted.”
12. Considering the matter on the anvil of law laid down by this Court
in Mahipal (supra) and Dolat Ram (supra), it is significant to mention
that respondent No.2 was not named in the FIR and was arrested
subsequently on the basis of the oral dying declaration of the deceased
and disclosure statement of the co-accused. He has suffered
incarceration for about six and a half years when the impugned order was
passed by the High Court. The High Court passed the impugned order on
CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.4713/2025 Page 5 of 6
22.01.2025 i.e., more than a year ago and there is no allegation that,
during this period, respondent No.2 has misused the liberty granted to
him. Thus, considering long pre-trial incarceration of respondent No.2
and the evidence against him, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the present is not a case where the discretion of grant of bail exercised by
the High Court in favour of respondent No.2 should be interfered.
Therefore, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby
dismissed.
.………………............................J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……..…………..........................J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 30, 2026.
CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.4713/2025 Page 6 of 6