Supreme Court: Second Bail Orders Must Record Fresh Grounds Or Changed Circumstances

In Mohseen Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., the Supreme Court has ruled that courts granting bail in a second round must clearly record the existence of changed circumstances or fresh grounds. The Court said that a subsequent bail order without such reasoning can be interfered with and set aside.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh passed the judgement while hearing an appeal against an Allahabad High Court order granting bail to an accused in an attempt to murder and Arms Act case.

The Supreme Court observed that there is no complete prohibition on granting bail after an earlier rejection or cancellation. However, the Court stressed that such relief must be supported by reasons showing either a material change in circumstances or the emergence of fresh grounds that were not previously considered.

The Bench stated, “While there is no absolute bar against a High Court granting bail to an accused whose bail was previously cancelled by this Court, the grant of bail must be supported by reasons demonstrating either a change in circumstances or the existence of fresh grounds not considered by this Court at the time of cancellation.”

The Court found fault with the Allahabad High Court for ignoring several important factors while granting bail. These included the earlier rejection of bail, allegations that the accused absconded after cancellation of bail, threats made to witnesses, CCTV evidence, and recovery of a country-made pistol linked to the accused.

According to the Supreme Court, the High Court also failed to properly consider the trial court’s rejection of the second bail application. The Bench said that merely mentioning “facts and circumstances of the case” without discussing the reasons for granting relief does not amount to a reasoned judicial order.

Relying on Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118, the Court observed that orders overlooking crucial material on record become perverse and unsustainable in law.

The Bench further referred to Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496, where the Supreme Court laid down important principles for deciding bail matters. These include examining the gravity of allegations, possibility of absconding, likelihood of witness intimidation, repetition of offence, and the overall impact on the administration of justice.

After analysing the record, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the accused to surrender. The Court held that the High Court had committed an error by ignoring vital prosecution material which prima facie indicated the involvement of the accused in the crime.

The Bench also referred to its recent ruling in Vasantha versus State of Tamil Nadu and others, where anticipatory bail granted by the Madras High Court was set aside because no material change in circumstances had been recorded after earlier dismissal of bail pleas.