Bail & Related matters

In Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka and Ors [2023 0 INSC 1008], the Supreme Court held that Courts have the power to grant Transit Anticipatory Bail for an FIR registered outside their territorial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Hon’ble Supreme Court warned the Courts to exercise the authority to grant Transit Anticipatory Bail judiciously and only in exceptional situations.

Filing of bail applications simultaneously before different courts in an experimental manner without disclosure of pendency of other applications, amounts to suppression of material facts, and is not permissible and is to be deprecated which may disentitle the applicant to relief, observed Kerala High Court in Lalachan V M v. State of Kerala [2025:KER:87554].

Supreme Court of India increasingly stresses the right to a speedy trial (under Article 21) as a ground for bail, even with restrictions imposed in Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), especially if trials are delayed. Recent decisions show deep inconsistencies, with different benches reaching contrary results on similar facts, leading to concerns about subjective application of liberty principles.

In Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan [2025 INSC 871], the Supreme Court directed that every High Court in the country should consider incorporating a provision in their respective Rules, similar to the one framed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Such a provision mandates that every bail application must state whether a similar plea has been moved before the Supreme Court and, if so, the result thereof.

The "Triple Test" (or Tripod Test) remains the cornerstone of bail jurisprudence. As restated by the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [AIR 2019 SC 4198], the principle requires courts to assess three primary factors before granting bail: The risk of the accused absconding if released. The risk of the accused tampering with evidence. The risk of the accused influencing or intimidating witnesses.

In the case of Godson v. State of Kerala [2022 (2) KLD 447], the Kerala High Court held that a mere violation of bail conditions, including involvement in a subsequent criminal case, is not, in itself, sufficient for the automatic cancellation of bail.

A trial court is empowered to cancel bail granted by a superior court upon any violation of the bail conditions. This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka v. Vinay Rajashekharappa Kulkarni.

The Supreme Court has laid down the principles regarding appeals against the grant of bail in its judgment in Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of New Delhi and Anr [2025 INSC 974].

A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v State of Gujarat & Another [ AIR 2015 SC 3090].