Trial Court cannot grant bail on same material or irrelevant grounds after rejection by superior Court.

The petitioner filed an application under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for the cancellation of regular bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2 (Suresh Yadav).

The prosecution alleged that on May 30, 2021, the accused fired a fatal gunshot at the deceased, Lalan Yadav

A Coordinate Bench of the Patna High Court had previously rejected the accused’s bail on May 7, 2025, citing the "nature and gravity of the offence" and "direct allegation of firing"

On March 13, 2026, the District Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jhanjharpur, granted bail on the grounds that several witnesses had turned hostile and that the trial would consume significant time

1. Whether the Trial Court’s order granting bail was illegal, perverse, or founded upon irrelevant considerations, thereby warranting annulment by a superior court

2. Whether a subordinate court can grant bail on substantially the same material after a superior court has expressly declined such relief

3. Whether the hostility of prosecution witnesses and the prospect of a prolonged trial constitute valid legal grounds for enlarging a primary accused on bail

The distinction between "cancellation of bail" (due to post-grant misconduct) and "annulment/setting aside of bail" (due to legal infirmity/perversity at the time of grant) as established in Puran v. Rambilas (2001) and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014)

State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) regarding judicial discipline and the requirement of "substantial change in fact-situation" for subsequent bail

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) which holds that a court must record fresh grounds when taking a different view than previous rejection orders

X v. State of Rajasthan (2024), stating courts should be loath to grant bail once the trial in a serious offence has commenced

The High Court found the impugned order perverse because it was passed on substantially the same material available when the High Court previously rejected the bail

The Trial Court failed to advert to the specific reasons for the earlier rejection—namely, the direct allegation of the fatal shot—and thus effectively "reviewed" the superior court’s order, violating judicial hierarchy

The Court determined that the hostility of witnesses is not a germane consideration for bail and should instead have signaled a need for caution regarding potential witness intimidation

The Trial Court's reliance on "prolonged trial" was contradictory to the High Court’s previous direction to "expedite the trial"

Parity with co-accused was also deemed inapplicable as the role of Suresh Yadav (the main assailant) was distinct and graver than those already granted bail

The court held that the grant of bail was perverse, ignored relevant material, and failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances

The bail bonds were cancelled, and Opposite Party No. 2 was directed to surrender within two weeks

The court took serious note of the Judicial Officer’s "reckless" conduct and directed the District Additional Sessions Judge-III to show cause why he should not be recommended for special judicial training at the Bihar Judicial Academy