The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by the High Court in a murder case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. The appellant alleged that respondent No.2 was a dangerous criminal with local influence, involved in a murder using prohibited weapons, and had a criminal history overlooked by the High Court. The Court, assisted by an Amicus Curiae, examined legal principles from Mahipal and Dolat Ram, which emphasize that bail cancellation requires exceptional circumstances like interference with justice. The Court considered that respondent No.2 was implicated post-FIR based on dying declaration and co-accused's statement, had been incarcerated for over six years, and co-accused had received bail. Finding no grounds for cancellation, the Court upheld the bail order, emphasizing that bail should not be cancelled mechanically.
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the High Court's order granting bail to respondent No.2 in a murder case -- The appellant argued that respondent No.2 was a dreaded criminal with local influence, involved in a daylight murder using automatic weapons, and had a long criminal history ignored by the High Court -- The Court, referring to Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and Another (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Dolat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, held that cancellation of bail requires exceptional circumstances, such as interference with justice or abuse of bail -- The Court noted that respondent No.2 was not named in the First Information Report but implicated based on oral dying declaration and co-accused's disclosure, had suffered incarceration for six and a half years, and co-accused had been granted bail -- Applying the principles from Mahipal and Dolat Ram, the Court found no supervening circumstances warranting cancellation of bail, thus upholding the High Court's order
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order granting bail to respondent No.2, and found no grounds for cancellation of bail
Citation: 2026 LawText (SC) (01) 88
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 2026 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.4713 of 2025]
Date of Decision: 2026-01-30
Case Title: The Issue of consideration was whether the bail granted to respondent No.2 by the High Court should be cancelled based on allegations of criminal history, local influence, and threat to the appellant
Before Judge: SANJAY KAROL J. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026 INSC 98
Advocate(s): Abhishek Mohan Goel (Amicus Curiae)
Appellant: Usman Ali
Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal challenging the High Court's order granting bail to an accused in a murder case
Remedy Sought: The appellant sought cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by the High Court
Filing Reason: The appellant alleged that respondent No.2 was a dreaded criminal with local influence, involved in a murder, and that the High Court ignored his criminal history and threat to the appellant's life
Previous Decisions: The High Court granted bail to respondent No.2 on 22.1.2025, and co-accused had been released on bail earlier by the High Court
Issues: Whether the bail granted to respondent No.2 by the High Court should be cancelled based on allegations of criminal history and threat to the appellant Whether the principles for cancellation of bail, as established in precedent cases, were satisfied in this case
Submissions/Arguments: The appellant argued that respondent No.2 was a dangerous criminal with local influence, involved in a murder using automatic weapons, and had a long criminal history overlooked by the High Court, posing a threat to the appellant's life The Amicus Curiae argued that cancellation of bail requires exceptional circumstances, such as interference with justice, and that the facts did not warrant cancellation, citing Mahipal and Dolat Ram
Ratio Decidendi: Cancellation of bail requires exceptional circumstances, such as interference with justice, evasion of justice, or abuse of bail conditions, and should not be done mechanically; in this case, respondent No.2 was implicated post-FIR, had suffered long incarceration, and co-accused were granted bail, with no supervening circumstances justifying cancellation
Judgment Excerpts: In Mahipal (supra), this Court held thus: '14. The provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon the liberty of an individual...' In Dolat Ram (supra), this Court opined thus: '4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis...'
Procedural History: First Information Report registered in 2018 -- Respondent No.2 arrested in December 2018 -- High Court granted bail to respondent No.2 on 22.1.2025 -- Supreme Court granted leave and heard appeal in 2026 -- Appeal dismissed on 1.1.2026
