Bail granted on inaccurate disclosures may be set aside for fresh reconsideration.

The petitioner, the complainant, sought cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No. 2, Atar Rehman @ Atwa, by the Trial Court on 6 March 2026.

The petitioner alleged that the bail order was obtained through suppression and misrepresentation of material facts.

In particular, an undertaking filed by the accused’s counsel stated that the accused was not involved in any other case, although he allegedly had several criminal involvements, including a murder committed while in custody.

It was further alleged that the accused’s submission that he had never misused interim bail was incorrect, as he had allegedly jumped interim bail in 2020 and attempted to fire at the police party when the police went to apprehend him.

The accused contended that the State and the complainant had been represented at the bail hearing and that bail had been granted after considering all relevant circumstances, including his prolonged incarceration of approximately eight years.

During the hearing before the High Court, the accused undertook to surrender before the Jail Authorities by 4:00 p.m. on 23 August 2026 and requested that the bail application be reconsidered by the Trial Court.

1. Whether bail granted to respondent No. 2 should be set aside on account of an incorrect undertaking and alleged suppression of material facts concerning his criminal antecedents and misuse of earlier interim bail.

2. Whether, after surrender, respondent No. 2’s bail application should be reconsidered afresh by the Trial Court on the basis of a fresh affidavit and an updated Nominal Roll.

The Court applied the principle that bail obtained or maintained on the basis of materially incorrect, vague, or suppressed facts may be set aside and the bail application reconsidered by the competent court.

It also relied on the procedural directions of the Supreme Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3127, requiring a fresh and proper affidavit from the accused and consideration of an updated Nominal Roll from the Jail Authorities.

The Court clarified that setting aside the bail order for reconsideration did not amount to an adjudication on the merits of the criminal case or the ultimate entitlement to bail.

The High Court found that the undertaking filed by the accused’s counsel contained incorrect facts and that the affidavit filed by the pairokar was vague and unspecific.

These circumstances justified setting aside the earlier bail order, notwithstanding the accused’s contention that the State and complainant had participated in the bail proceedings and that the Trial Court had considered his long incarceration.

Since the accused offered to surrender and sought reconsideration rather than an immediate determination of his bail entitlement, the Court directed that the bail application be examined afresh after surrender.

It further required the Trial Court to obtain a fresh Nominal Roll and a fresh affidavit compliant with Zeba Khan.

The Court expressly refrained from making any observation on the merits, leaving the Trial Court to decide the application independently after hearing both sides.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to surrender before the Jail Authorities on or before 23 August 2026.

Upon surrender, the Trial Court/Sessions Court was directed to reconsider the bail application afresh, after obtaining a fresh affidavit in accordance with Zeba Khan and a fresh Nominal Roll from the Jail Authorities.

The High Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the Trial Court’s decision on the merits.

The petition and pending application were accordingly disposed of.