Supreme Court: When Can Bail Orders Be Set Aside vs Cancelled?

The Supreme Court of India has held that a superior court can interfere with a bail order if it ignores relevant material on record or is based on irrelevant considerations. It clarified that this is different from cancelling bail, which should be done only when the accused misuses the liberty granted or tampers with evidence.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta drew a clear distinction between cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC [now Section 483(3) of the BNSS] and setting aside an incorrect bail order passed by a court below.

Court was hearing an appeal filed by Shobha Namdev Sonavane. It set aside a March 1, 2023 order of the Bombay High Court which had granted bail to two accused in a murder case registered at Kopargaon Taluka Police Station in Ahmednagar.

The case relates to the death of Namdev Sonavane, who allegedly died on August 24, 2022 after being assaulted with iron rods during a dispute between two families.

The high court had granted bail noting that six persons were involved but only eight injuries were found on the deceased, and it was unclear whose weapon caused the fatal head injury. The Supreme Court said this reasoning was irrelevant in a case involving unlawful assembly.

The appellant argued that the high court relied on weak reasoning, including the claim that an injured witness could not clearly describe which part of the body was targeted. It was also argued that the high court wrongly analysed medical evidence as if it were deciding the case at trial, and failed to consider the seriousness of the offence, especially as it involved a victim from a Scheduled Caste community.

On the other hand, the accused argued that the bail was granted after considering all material on record. They pointed to ongoing civil disputes between the parties, suggesting a possibility of false implication. They also highlighted that despite six attackers, only eight injuries were found.

The Supreme Court examined whether the high court’s reasons for granting bail were legally sound. It observed that prior disputes between the parties could equally provide a motive for the accused to commit the offence, rather than being a ground for bail.

Referring to the FIR, Court noted that six accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, abused the victims using caste-based remarks, and carried out a coordinated attack with iron rods and sticks. The complainant was also assaulted when she tried to intervene.

The Bench emphasised that in cases of unlawful assembly, each member is equally responsible for acts committed in furtherance of the common objective. Therefore, the high court’s view that individual roles had to be clearly established at the bail stage was legally incorrect.

Court also noted that given the number of injuries, the argument of false implication was not convincing. It added that when offences like rioting and unlawful assembly are invoked, the prosecution is not required to assign specific acts to each accused at the stage of bail.

Holding that there was no valid reason to grant bail, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused. It directed them to surrender before the trial court within four weeks. It also directed the trial court to complete the trial within one year, and allowed the accused to apply for bail again after key witnesses, including eyewitnesses and medical experts, are examined.

Also Read| Can Bail Be Cancelled for Violating Victim’s Right to Be Heard? Supreme Court Explains Section 15A(5) of SC/ST Act

Also Read| Bail cancellation cannot be ordered merely due to perceived indiscipline on part of accused before granting bail: Supreme Court

Case Title: Shobha Namdev Sonavane Vs Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane And Others 

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Date of Judgment: February 23, 2025