'No absolute bar on Allahabad HC granting bail after Supreme Court cancellation, but must cite fresh grounds'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has clarified that while there is no absolute prohibition on a Allahabad High Court granting bail to an accused whose bail was earlier cancelled by the apex court, such an order must be backed by strong reasons showing a change in circumstances or fresh grounds that were not considered previously.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh emphasised that the conduct of the accused after the cancellation of bail is a vital factor in deciding fresh bail applications.

The court also stressed that bail orders must reflect proper reasoning and not merely state “facts and circumstances of the case” without substantive analysis.

The court's observations came while setting aside a September 22, 2025, order of the Allahabad High Court granting regular bail to one Jeeshan in a case involving an alleged attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In its judgment on May 22, 2026, the court noted that Section 307 IPC is attracted when an accused fires at a victim with the intent to kill or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, even if the victim escapes unhurt by chance.

According to the complaint, Jeeshan had brandished a countrymade pistol and opened fire at the family members of the complainant to pressure them into withdrawing a murder case related to the killing of the complainant’s brother.

Jeeshan’s anticipatory bail plea was initially rejected by the High Court.

After his arrest, a single judge of the High Court granted him regular bail, describing his role as “vague and general” and citing lack of substantive evidence.

The complainant challenged the order before the Supreme Court, which on January 27, 2025, set aside the bail, terming the High Court’s reasoning erroneous.

The court had directed Jeeshan to surrender immediately.

However, he absconded for 42 days before surrendering on March 10, 2025. His second bail plea was rejected by the trial court, which expressed concerns over his potential to flee and tamper with evidence.

He then approached the Allahabad High Court again, which granted him bail through the impugned order.

Allowing the complainant’s appeal, the bench held that the High Court’s order suffered from a “manifest error of law” and failed to follow settled principles governing bail.

The court rejected Jeeshan’s contention that the delay in surrendering was due to the pendency of a review petition, stating that filing a review does not automatically stay the original order.

It further observed that claims regarding absence of his involvement in CCTV footage or lack of firearm injuries on victims were matters for trial and could not be decisive at the bail stage.

The bench highlighted the serious context of the case, noting that the offence appeared to be a premeditated attempt to terrorise eyewitnesses in a murder case and force them to compromise.

The court pointed out that the High Court failed to consider several crucial factors, including the earlier court order, Jeeshan’s absconding and alleged threats to witnesses after bail cancellation, recovery of the countrymade pistol, and the trial court’s rejection of his second bail plea.

Terming the High Court order “perverse,” the court set it aside, cancelled Jeeshan’s bail, and directed him to surrender forthwith.