Courts Must Be Wary Of Granting Bail In Serious Offences During Trial: SC

The Supreme Court recently cancelled the bail granted to an accused in a murder case, observing that courts should ordinarily be loath to grant bail in serious offences when the trial is underway and material witnesses are yet to be examined.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said the gravity of the allegations against the accused and the fact that a material witness was yet to be examined justified cancellation of bail.

The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Tiwari, had challenged the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench order dated August 20, 2026, granting bail to Aditya Dev Pathak in a murder case registered at Chinhat police station, Lucknow East, in 2023.

Pathak is accused of murdering Tiwari's daughter using an illegal pistol. The FIR invoked Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Section 103 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)] and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. A charge sheet was subsequently filed and the trial commenced.

The high court had granted bail to Pathak on the ground that five eyewitnesses had turned hostile during the trial.

Disagreeing with the high court's decision, the Supreme Court referred to its judgment in X v State of Rajasthan (2024), wherein it had observed that courts should ordinarily be reluctant to grant bail in serious offences while the trial is underway.

"Considering that a material witness remains to be examined in the trial, and the serious allegations against respondent No.2, we are of the opinion that the bail granted to respondent No.2 ought to be cancelled," the Bench observed.

Court directed Pathak to surrender before the jurisdictional court within two weeks. In case of non-compliance, the trial court was directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure his custody.

According to the prosecution, Pathak befriended the deceased, a B.Com third-year student, through social media and took her to his flat on the intervening night of September 20 and 21, 2023, where he allegedly shot her dead with a country-made pistol.

Pathak, however, claimed that he was in a relationship with the deceased and that she frequently visited his room. He relied on various WhatsApp chats to support his claim. He further contended that the shooting was accidental, claiming that the deceased had mishandled the firearm believing it was not loaded.

Case Title: Santosh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of UP & Anr

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran

Date of Order: October 16, 2026