ASHOK DHANKAD versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (SUPREME COURT) 2025 INSC 974

(1) The grant of bail constitutes a discretionary judicial remedy that necessitates a delicate and context-sensitive balancing of competing legal and societal interests. On one hand lies the imperative to uphold the personal liberty of the accused -an entrenched constitutional value reinforced by the presumption of innocence, which remains a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. On the other hand, the court must remain equally mindful of the gravity of the alleged offence, the broader societal implications of the accused’s release, and the need to preserve the integrity and fairness of the investigative and trial processes. While liberty is sacrosanct, particularly in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, it cannot be construed in a manner that dilutes the seriousness of heinous or grave offences or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice. The exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters, therefore, must be informed by a calibrated assessment of the nature and seriousness of the charge, the strength of the prima facie case, the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice or tampering with evidence or witnesses, and the overarching interest of ensuring that the trial proceeds without obstruction or prejudice.

(2) Setting aside an order granting bail and cancellation of bail are two distinct concepts. While the former contemplates the correctness of the order itself, the latter pertains to the conduct of the Accused subsequent to the order granting bail. Judicial pronouncements of this Court have time and again reiterated this position.

(3) In Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala (2022) 3 SCC 230, the Supreme Court while setting aside the order granting bail to the Accused therein, had expounded that different considerations must be applied while considering an order of releasing an Accused on bail and an application for cancellation (which would include breach of bail conditions). Moreover, the Court observed that the conduct of the accused subsequent to an order granting bail would not be relevant while considering an appeal against such order.

(4) In Y v. State of Rajasthan (2022) 9 SCC 269 the Supreme Court held that an order granting bail can be tested on illegality, perversity, arbitrariness and being based on unjustified material.

(v)  The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as follows:

(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail;

(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail;

(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court. [See: Y v. State of Rajasthan (Supra); Jaibunisha v. Meherban & Ors (2022) 5 SCC 465 and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu (2023) 13 SCC 549]

(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime;

(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail; and

(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds discussed above.