Courts Must Be Wary of Granting Bail in Serious Offences During Trial: Supreme Court Sets a Strong Precedent

Apex Court Cancels Murder Accused’s Bail, Emphasizing That Courts Must Exercise Extreme Caution When Material Witnesses Are Yet to Be Examined

Reversing High Court Relief, Bench Highlights That Witness Hostility and Gravity of Allegations Demand Rigorous Judicial Scrutiny While Trial Is Underway

By Legal Editor

New Delhi: October 31, 2026:

The Supreme Court of India has once again reinforced the strict legal parameters governing personal liberty in heinous crimes, ruling that courts must exercise heightened caution and restraint when considering bail applications during an ongoing trial.

In a significant judgment delivered in the case of Santosh Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of UP & Anr., a Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran set aside an order passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had previously granted bail to the accused, Aditya Dev Pathak, who faces grave charges of murder.

The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores a critical principle of criminal jurisprudence: while personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount, the gravity of serious offences, coupled with the potential risk to fair trial proceedings—particularly when material witnesses are yet to be examined—serves as a compelling ground to deny or revoke bail.

1. Background of the Case: The Tragic Incident and Legal Proceedings

The genesis of the case dates back to September 2023 in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. According to the prosecution, the victim—a B.Com third-year student—was allegedly befriended by the accused, Aditya Dev Pathak, through social media.

On the intervening night of September 20 and 21, 2023, Pathak allegedly took the victim to his flat, where she was shot dead using an illegal country-made firearm. Following a complaint filed by the victim’s father, Santosh Kumar Tiwari, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered at the Chinhat police station in Lucknow East.

The police invoked multiple serious provisions of law, including:

• Section 302 (Murder) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC), which correspond to Section 103 and Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), respectively.
• Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, concerning the possession and use of illegal firearms.

Following a thorough investigation, the local police filed a charge sheet, and formal trial proceedings commenced before the trial court.

2. The High Court's Rationale and the Petitioner’s Challenge

During the pendency of the trial, the accused, Aditya Dev Pathak, approached the Allahabad High Court seeking regular bail. On August 20, 2026, the Lucknow Bench of the High Court granted bail primarily on the ground that five eyewitnesses examined during the trial had turned hostile.

Aggrieved by the High Court's relief, the victim’s father, Santosh Kumar Tiwari, approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. The petitioner contended that the High Court had failed to appreciate the gravity of the crime, the nature of the evidence, and the fact that vital, material witnesses were still awaiting examination before the trial court. It was argued that granting liberty to an accused facing murder charges under such circumstances severely prejudices the pursuit of justice and creates an environment where remaining witnesses could be compromised.

3. Supreme Court’s Observations and Legal Reasoning

Upon hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court Bench sided firmly with the petitioner, setting aside the bail order and directing the accused to surrender within two weeks.

The apex court's judgment heavily draws upon established jurisprudence, notably reiterating its earlier observations in the landmark ruling X v. State of Rajasthan (2024). The Supreme Court underscored the following core tenets:

A. Restraint in Serious Offences During Trial

The Bench observed that courts must ordinarily be reluctant and loath to grant bail when an accused is standing trial for heinous, serious crimes like murder. The stage of the trial is a crucial determinant; when proceedings are actively underway, granting premature liberty can undermine public confidence in the legal system.

B. Pending Examination of Material Witnesses

A cornerstone of the Supreme Court's reasoning in this case was the status of key witnesses. The Bench noted that a material witness was yet to be examined. Allowing an accused charged with a capital-type offence to remain on bail while critical testimony remains pending creates an inherent vulnerability regarding witness tampering or intimidation.

C. Gravity of the Allegations

The sheer brutality and seriousness of the allegations—involving the murder of a young student inside a private residence using an illegal firearm—outweighed the arguments presented by the defence regarding the hostility of prior witnesses or personal relationships.

4. Defence Arguments Rejected

Before the apex court, the defence attempted to establish a narrative of a consensual relationship and an accidental shooting. Counsel for the accused argued that:

• The deceased and the accused shared a friendly relationship, supported by various WhatsApp chats showing frequent visits to his room.
• The firing was accidental, claiming that the victim had mishandled the firearm under the belief that it was unloaded.

However, these factual defences failed to sway the Supreme Court at the stage of trial, where the primary focus remained on the overarching gravity of the offence, the statutory severity of Section 302 IPC / Section 103 BNS, and the integrity of the ongoing judicial process.

5. Directives Issued by the Apex Court

Concluding its judgment delivered on October 16, 2026, the Supreme Court issued clear and strict directives:

1. Bail Cancelled: The order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to Aditya Dev Pathak was formally quashed and set aside.
2. Surrender Mandate: The accused was directed to surrender before the jurisdictional trial court within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.
3. Execution of Custody: The court mandated that in the event of non-compliance by the accused, the trial court must immediately initiate appropriate legal steps to secure his custody.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. What was the core legal issue in Santosh Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of UP?

A. The core issue revolved around whether the Allahabad High Court was justified in granting bail to a murder accused during an ongoing trial merely because some eyewitnesses had turned hostile, given the gravity of the offence and unexamined material witnesses.

Q2. What did the Supreme Court rule regarding bail during trials?

A. The Supreme Court ruled that courts must be extremely cautious and generally reluctant to grant bail in serious offences (such as murder) while the trial is actively underway, especially when material witnesses are yet to depose before the court.

Q3. Why did the High Court initially grant bail to the accused?

A. The Allahabad High Court had granted bail to Aditya Dev Pathak because five eyewitnesses examined during the initial stages of the trial had turned hostile.

Q4. What sections of the law were invoked against the accused?

A. The accused was charged under Section 302 (Murder) and Section 201 (Destruction of evidence) of the IPC (corresponding to Sections 103 and 238 of the BNS), alongside Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act.

Q5. What action did the Supreme Court order against the accused?

A. The Supreme Court cancelled his bail, ordered him to surrender within two weeks, and directed the trial court to take strict legal measures to secure his custody if he failed to surrender voluntarily.