Case at a Glance
A man accused of murdering the petitioner’s daughter with an illegal pistol in Lucknow was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court because five eyewitnesses had turned hostile at the trial. The father challenged the bail. The Supreme Court, relying on X v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 11 SC CK 0052, noted that courts should ordinarily be loath to grant bail in serious offences while the trial is on, and that a material witness was yet to be examined. It cancelled the bail and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks.
FIR No. 412 of 2023 was registered at Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow East, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The accused (respondent No. 2) is alleged to have killed the petitioner’s daughter using an illegal pistol. The trial is in progress.
By judgment dated 20 August 2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3601 of 2024, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused on the ground that five eyewitnesses had turned hostile in the trial. The deceased’s father approached the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of that bail.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should bail granted to a murder accused mid-trial, on the ground that several eyewitnesses turned hostile, be cancelled when a material witness is still to be examined?
Mid-Trial Bail in Serious Offences Needs Caution
The Supreme Court relied on X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, which observed that courts should ordinarily be “loath to grant bail” in serious offences while the trial is underway. The fact that some eyewitnesses had turned hostile did not end the matter, because the prosecution still had a material witness to examine.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the accused and the stage of the trial, the Court concluded that the bail “ought to be cancelled”. The order records counsel’s appearances but not their arguments.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Allahabad High Court’s judgment dated 20 August 2026 granting bail to the accused is set aside.
- In serious offences, courts should ordinarily be slow to grant bail while the trial is in progress, following X v. State of Rajasthan.
- Hostility of some eyewitnesses does not justify bail where a material witness is still to be examined.
- The accused must surrender before the jurisdictional court within two weeks, failing which the trial court must take steps to secure his custody.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It cautions High Courts against granting bail mid-trial merely because some witnesses have turned hostile.
- It protects the integrity of the remaining prosecution evidence in serious cases.
- It confirms that a victim’s family can successfully seek cancellation of bail before the Supreme Court.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Victims’ Families
- You can challenge a bail order in a murder case, especially if key witnesses are yet to testify.
- Point out the stage of the trial and the evidence still to come.
For Counsel
- Bail pleas based on hostile witnesses should address whether material witnesses remain to be examined.
- Cite X v. State of Rajasthan when opposing bail mid-trial in serious offences.
Key Takeaways
- Courts should ordinarily be slow to grant bail in serious offences during an ongoing trial.
- Some eyewitnesses turning hostile is not, by itself, enough for bail.
- A pending material witness weighs against releasing the accused.
- The accused must surrender within two weeks.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can seek cancellation of bail?
The State, and also the victim or the victim’s family, as the deceased’s father did here.
Does this mean the accused is guilty?
No. The order concerns bail only; guilt will be decided at the trial on the evidence.
What happens if he does not surrender?
The trial court must take appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure his custody.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has sent a murder accused back to custody while the trial continues, underlining that hostile witnesses do not automatically weaken the case when crucial evidence is still to be recorded.
Practical takeaway: When opposing mid-trial bail in serious offences, show the court which material witnesses remain to be examined; that can outweigh hostility of others.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com