In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India overturned a High Court order that had cancelled the bail of an accused facing charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Apex Court emphasized that the liberty of an individual is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, and courts must exercise great caution before interfering with it.

"Liberty of an individual is a precious right under the Constitution, and courts should be wary of interfering with it without valid justification,"

observed a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan while setting aside the High Court's decision.

Background of the Case

The case involved appellant Kailash Kumar, who was accused of an attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC. The charges stemmed from an incident where the accused allegedly inflicted an axe blow on the complainant. Following his arrest in June 2022, he remained in jail for two years before securing bail from the Sessions Court in August 2024.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Rules Physical Presence Not Required in Domestic Violence Cases, Quashes Extradition Order Against US-Based Husband

However, the complainant challenged the bail order, and the High Court, in January 2025, revoked the bail. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court for relief.

The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's reasoning and found that it had not established any misconduct by the appellant post-bail that would warrant cancellation. The Apex Court highlighted several key factors considered while deciding whether bail should be revoked:

• Misuse of Liberty: No evidence suggested that the appellant had misused the bail privilege.
• Influencing Witnesses: There was no claim or proof that the appellant had threatened witnesses.
• Tampering with Evidence: The prosecution did not present any material indicating tampering of evidence.
• Delaying Trial: The Court noted that there was no sign of the appellant using delaying tactics to prolong the case.

"The High Court did not address any of these relevant considerations before cancelling bail," the Supreme Court noted.

Instead of evaluating these critical factors, the High Court had engaged in what the Supreme Court termed as a "mini-trial" at the bail stage. The Supreme Court ruled that this approach was legally flawed and set aside the High Court’s decision.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into Man's Travel to USA Despite Depositing Passport With Court

Given the absence of any valid reason to revoke bail, the Supreme Court restored the Sessions Court’s bail order. However, it laid down specific conditions:

• The appellant must appear before the Trial Court on all scheduled dates unless officially exempted.
• Failure to comply with these conditions may result in cancellation of bail by the Trial Court.

"Our decision does not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case,"

the Court clarified, ensuring that the trial process remains impartial.

The Court referred to its previous ruling in Ajwar v. Waseem and Anr. (2024), which set guidelines for bail cancellation. The key considerations include whether:

1. The accused has violated any bail conditions.
2. The accused has attempted to influence witnesses or delay proceedings.
3. The order granting bail was legally unsound or perverse.

Since none of these factors were applicable in the present case, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision was unjustified.

Case Name: KAILASH KUMAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.