In a batch of criminal appeals filed before the Supreme Court against a judgment and order dated 19-09-2025 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, whereby the respondent accused persons were granted regular bail in a case regarding a First Information Report (FIR) registered for the commission of offences under Sections 302, 307, 324, 506, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Sections 25,45, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the impugned order to the extent that it granted bail to respondents 2, 3, and 5, while refraining to interfere with the bail granted to respondent 4.
On 12-09-2023, the deceased was attacked while visiting his wife (appellant), who was admitted to a hospital for medical treatment. The accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons. Their assault led to the deceased person’s death, and his post-mortem report recorded 13 injuries. It was also alleged that when the appellant tried to intervene to save her husband, she was also attacked with a sword. Respondent 3 allegedly attempted to shoot at the deceased person’s chest but struck his shoulder. The accused persons also damaged his car and removed the CCTV footage from the hospital premises.
During the course of the investigation, offences under Sections 482, 427, and 201 of the IPC were also added, and a chargesheet was filed on 07-12-2023, with charges framed by the trial court on 08-04-2024. Respondent 4’s bail application was rejected because, although he was not named in the FIR, he had been nominated as an accused and a kirpan was recovered from him. Respondent 2’s bail was rejected as he was specifically named in the FIR and an active role was attributed to him. Respondent 3’s bail was rejected as he was the main accused. Respondent 5’s bail was rejected as he was also actively involved in the assault.
Aggrieved, the respondent preferred separate petitions before the High Court, seeking regular bail. By the impugned order, the High Court allowed the petitions on the ground that respondents 2–4 had undergone custody for 1 year, 11 months, and 29 days, while respondent 5 had undergone custody for 1 year, 9 months, and 16 days. It was also observed that only 3 out of 30 witnesses had been examined and that the trial was progressing slowly.
The Court opined that the High Court had erred in enlarging all accused persons on bail by a common judgment, without considering their distinct roles in an individual capacity and their criminal antecedents. The Court found it clear that the offence was exceptionally grave and stated that the accused persons’ individual roles and their respective criminal antecedents were significant and warranted careful consideration before the grant of bail.
The Court noted that respondent 2 had over 20 criminal antecedents involving offences under Section 302, 307, and 323 of the IPC. It was also noted that respondent 3 was the main accused who allegedly attacked the couple with deadly weapons and raised lalkaras invoking a prior murder motive, characterizing the incident as a premeditated one. The Court took note of 8 criminal antecedents alleged against respondent 3 as well.
The Court stated that the High Court had erred by allowing the bail petitions, as even though the incarceration period and the delay in trial were relevant considerations, they could not serve as the sole basis for granting bail in a case involving the alleged killing of a person by an armed mob. It was stated that “Criminal antecedents are not merely a matter of record, but bear directly on whether an accused is likely to abide by bail conditions, refrain from repeating offences, or desist from intimidating witnesses.”
The Court considered it to be a serious infirmity that, even though the material was placed before the High Court, it received no consideration in the impugned order, and it was said that the High Court’s failure to individualize its reasoning and to weigh the factors made the impugned order unsustainable to the extent that it was related to respondents 2, 3, and 5. Regarding respondent 4, the Court stated that he had not been specifically named in the FIR and that no specific overt act was attributed to him. It was noted that his implication primarily rested on the disclosure statements made by the other respondents and that he had no criminal antecedents. Hence, the Court refused to interfere with the bail granted to respondent 4.
The Court found that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the alleged offence and that it was required to exercise a higher degree of caution and circumspection, considering the nature of the accusations, the multiplicity of injuries, criminal antecedents, and the severity of punishment that may follow upon conviction. The Court stated that the grounds for granting bail could not be considered sufficient, and that neither the period of custody undergone nor the delay in trial could be determinative factors for bail when weighed against the gravity of the offence alleged, the roles of respondents 2, 3, and 5, and their criminal antecedents. The Court also noted that the trial was actively progressing.
Thus, finding no reasons to grant bail, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order to the extent it granted bail to respondents 2, 3, and 5. The said respondents were directed to surrender within 4 weeks, and, in the event of non-compliance, the trial court was directed to take necessary measures to ensure their custody. Lastly, the Court refused to entertain the petition with respect to respondent 4.
