This article is written by Trishla Chhangani, a law graduate (B.A. LL.B., 2025) from Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur.
The Supreme Court held that the power to set aside an order granting bail is distinct from cancelling bail; it stated that bail orders must reflect an application of mind to relevant factors.
The division bench of Justice Sanjay Karol And Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that an order granting bail can be set aside if found to be perverse, illegal, arbitrary and based on irrelevant facts.
The bench stated that the court thus granting bail in this case made it perverse and arbitrary by ignoring his abscondence, the serious nature of the offence, the recovery of weapons and the hostility of witnesses during the period of temporary bail.
The matter is over an accused and others abducting six men from different locations in Delhi.
The victims were beaten, and gunshots were fired, causing the death of one of the victims by blunt force trauma.
Evidence of bloodstained articles, weapons and firearms was recovered along with an FSL report of video authenticated by the FSL.
The accused absconded, and on evading the arrest, a non-bailable warrant was issued along with a police reward announcement before his arrest.
Charges under Sections 302, 307, 308, 364, 365, 452, 323, and 342 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Arms Act, were framed against him and others.
At the time when the high court was granting the regular bail to the accused, 35 out of 189 prosecution witnesses had been examined, with 28 turning hostile, while the remaining 21 co-accused continued to be in custody.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the high court order erred in granting regular bail to the accused without appreciating the seriousness of the charges and his conduct during the investigation.
They further submitted that the accused, being a public influencer, remained absconding during the FIR and also compelled to issue a non-bailable warrant and also a public reward for his arrest.
They submitted that the allegations involved abduction, brutal assaults with a deadly weapon and murder of the complainant’s son.
The petitioner’s counsel further urged that during the 5 separate periods of temporary bail, many witnesses turned hostile, indicating likely interference or intimidation.
They contended that Recovery of weapons and video further deepened the gravity of the case.
It was therefore submitted that the high court was ignoring those critical factors, thereby leading to a perverse and unsustainable bail order.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the high court’s order was justified based on relevant factors involving a lengthy custody period and that the hostile witnesses were already examined.
It was further emphasised by the counsel’s petitioner that the accused complied with all the conditions imposed in his earlier temporary bail.
Further, it was submitted by the counsel that influencing the witnesses was merely speculative and unsubstantiated.
They Also contended that the bail cannot be denied on the premise that the accused is of public stature.
The Supreme Court observed that the power to set aside an order of granting bail is different from cancelling bail.
The court stated that The former focuses on the legality and soundness of the original order rather than the accused’s conduct after release. The High Court has erroneously passed an order releasing the accused on bail.
The bench observed that the High Court erred by, inter alia, not considering the grievous nature of the crime, the possibility of influencing the trial by the accused and the conduct of the accused during the investigation.
The court further observed that the accused had absconded after the FIR, necessitating non-bailable warrants and a public reward.
The Court also took cognisance of the seriousness of the allegations against the accused involving abduction, recovery of weapons and video, and the accused being of public stature influenced the witnesses, in which 28 out of 35 turned hostile during his temporary bail period.
The court thus emphasised that these factors lead to risk of influence in trial and make the high court order perverse and unsustainable, therefore liable to be set aside.
The court allowed the appeal.
The court asked the accused to surrender before the concerned court within one week.
The court said that It shall be open for the accused to apply afresh for bail, with a change in circumstances, before the appropriate court, to be decided on its own merits.
Therefore, the court disposed of pending applications, if any.
Case details
Case – Ashok Dhankad Versus State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.
Citation – Criminal Appeal No. 3495 OF 2025 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5370 of 2025)
Counsel for Petitioner – Mr Siddharth Mridul, Mr Vikramjit Banerjee.
Counsel for the Respondent – Mr Mahesh Jethmalani.
Amit Sharma is the Content Editor at JurisHour. He has been writing about the Indian legal market. He has covered tax & company litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and Various Tribunals. Amit graduated from MLSU Law College with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. from MLSU, Udaipur, Rajasthan. An Advocate in Taxation, and practised in Tribunals as well as Rajasthan High Court and pursued Masters in Constitutional Law. He started out small with little resources but a big plan to take tax legal education to the remotest locations across India and eventually to the world. His vision is to make tax related legal developments accessible to the masses.
