Murder Accused Hid Body in Septic Tank: Supreme Court Cancels Bail, Calls High Court Order ‘Perverse’

The Supreme Court has said that if a bail order is perverse, based on irrelevant material, or passed without properly appreciating the facts and gravity of the offence, it can be cancelled or set aside by a superior court.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria observed that the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. However, Court clarified that there is also a clear distinction between cancelling bail due to the accused’s misconduct after release and setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order granting bail. The latter situation arises when the bail order itself suffers from serious legal flaws, as explained earlier in Ranjit Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2016).

Court was hearing an appeal filed by Gulabkali, the mother of the deceased, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order dated September 2, 2025, which had granted regular bail to the respondent, Aashish Gautam alias Arvind Kumar. He is accused of murdering her daughter, Rajkeshar Chaudhary.

According to the prosecution, the accused and the deceased were in a relationship and were planning to marry. However, his marriage was later fixed with another girl. When the deceased came to know about this, she allegedly began pressuring him to marry her. The prosecution claims that the accused then decided to eliminate her and sought the help of his friends Surendra Pratap, Rakesh Yadav and Deepak Chamar.

As per the accused’s memorandum statement, he murdered the deceased and hid her body in a septic tank inside his house. The body was allegedly covered with sand and soil, bricks were laid over it, and a mixture of sand and cement was poured on top to conceal it.

When the deceased did not return home after being called by the accused a day before the incident, her mother approached the police. During interrogation, the accused allegedly made a statement leading to the recovery of the body from his house.

The Supreme Court noted that the accused was arrested on June 10, 2023, and was granted bail in his second attempt before the high court on September 2, 2025. However, it found that the high court had not discussed or analysed the gravity of the offence before granting bail.

Counsel for the appellant argued that the bail order was passed without properly considering the nature and seriousness of the offence and the facts on record. He relied upon Guriaya Swayam Sevi Sansthan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2026) and Ajwar Vs Waseem & Ors (2025).

On the other hand, counsel for the accused submitted that once bail has been granted by the high court, the main consideration should be the conduct of the accused after release. He argued that the principles for granting bail and cancelling bail are different, and referred to previous Supreme Court decisions in Himanshu Sharma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) and Abhimanue Etc Vs State of Kerala (2025).

In the present case, the Supreme Court observed that the accused is alleged to have murdered a woman with whom he was in a relationship, allegedly to remove an obstacle to his marriage with another woman. The body was recovered at his instance.

The Bench said this was not a case where there was no evidence against the accused. It clarified that whether the charges are ultimately proved will be decided during trial. However, at this stage, there are serious allegations and strong circumstantial evidence which, if proved, could lead to conviction. Court noted that this aspect had not been considered by the high court while granting bail.

The Bench held that the high court’s order was perverse and passed without proper application of mind, as it failed to consider the gravity of the offence and the material placed by the prosecution.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the high court’s order granting bail. It directed the accused to surrender within two weeks. Court also clarified that the accused would be free to apply for bail again at an appropriate stage if the trial is unnecessarily delayed.

Case Title: Gulabkali Vs Aashish Gautam @ Arvind Kumar

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria

Date of Judgment: February 4, 2026