Bail & Related matters

When a Magistrate Court convicts an accused, the rule that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" no longer applies. Under Section 389(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) / corresponding Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provisions, the trial court may suspend a short sentence (not exceeding 3 years) and grant brief post-conviction bail to allow the convict time to file an appeal.

The Supreme Court in Zeba Khan v. State Of U.P [2026 INSC 144], observed that every petitioner or applicant seeking bail must disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and the existence of any coercive processes such as issuance of non-bailable warrants, declaration as a proclaimed offender, or similar proceedings, duly supported by an affidavit, so as to promote uniformity, transparency and integrity in bail adjudication at different tiers of courts.

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].

In a catena of case, the Supreme Court of India underscores the right to speedy trial under Article 21 as a ground for bail when trials get unduly delayed, despite having stringent restrictions for bail in the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) (see three-judge bench judgments in Padam Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1291] and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [AIR 2021 SC 712].

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.