IRFANversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

         [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1475 : 2025 INSC 1012

                           Irfan
                             v.
              State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
              (Criminal Appeal No. 3579 of 2025)
                         18 August 2025
        [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the Respondent
No.2 holding that any further detention would be detrimental to his
defence in the trial and inconsistent with the norms of fairness in
criminal jurisprudence.

                            Headnotes†
Bail – Grant of – When not justified – FIR filed against Respondent
No.2-accused u/ss.147, 148, 302, 304 and 34, IPC alleging that
along with his two sons he committed the murder of appellant’s
father – Eventually, bail granted by High Court – Propriety:
Held: High Court relied upon a decision of another co-ordinate
Bench in the case of Prabhat Gangwar wherein it was held that
in an application for grant of bail, the Court is competent to set an
accused on liberty to afford him an opportunity to frame his defence
and gather evidence, to enable him to refute the prosecution case
and establish his innocence – However, the Court cautioned that
such liberty on the said ground cannot be applied mechanically
and requires to be considered in the facts and circumstances of
each case – All relevant facts including the evidence on record,
conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as the trial
have to be adverted to before enlarging the accused on bail – The
view expressed in Prabhat Gangwar may be applied in rare cases
but in the light of the observations made therein – However, the
High Court failed to evaluate the facts and circumstances of the
present case especially the conduct of the accused and granted
bail solely on the ground that further incarceration will deprive the
accused from an effective defence strategy – Although, no such
basis was set out by Respondent No.2 for seeking bail as to what
kind of defence strategy and the evidence that was required to
be collected or what were the special facts and circumstances of
the case which required this kind of indulgence – Impugned order
erroneous, set aside. [Paras 4, 5, 8]
1476                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                              Case Law Cited
     Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P., decision of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
     No.2586 of 2023 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                             List of Keywords
     Bail; Further detention of the accused detrimental to defence in
     the trial; Further incarceration; Accused deprived from an effective
     defence strategy; Liberty to accused; Opportunity to frame defence
     and gather evidence; To enable accused to refute the prosecution
     case; To enable accused to establish his innocence; Fairness in
     criminal jurisprudence.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     3579 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 12-05-2025 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMBA No. 11471 of 2025

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv., Ms. Suvarna Swain, Shashank Kapoor,
     Aman Naqvi, Yashwant Singh.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Ameet Singh, Yunus Malik, Ms. Rajeeta Raj, Nishant Sharma,
     Aman Malik, Ankit Ambasta, Dr. Vijendra Singh, Ms. Apurva Singh,
     Gautam Kumar.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order

1.   Leave granted.
2.   The informant is before this Court assailing the correctness of the
     order dated 12.05.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                           1477

                           Irfan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


       Allahabad1 allowing the Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
       11471 of 2025, titled Riyasuddin vs. State of U.P., primarily on the
       ground that any further detention of the accused-applicant2 therein
       would be detrimental to his defence in the trial and inconsistent with
       the norms of fairness in criminal processual jurisprudence.
3.     Relevant facts for adjudication of this appeal are:
       i.      The appellant alleged in his complaint, which was registered
               as FIR No. 694 of 2022 at Police Station Khurja Nagar, District
               Bulandshahar, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 304 and 34 of
               Indian Penal Code, 1860 that Respondent No.2, along with his
               two sons-Sarfaraz and Umardin and one Afsar, committed the
               murder of his father-Idris and also caused injuries dangerous to
               life to his brother-Imram. It was further stated in the complaint
               that the accused had chased the complainant’s father inside a
               mosque and opened fire on him. Investigation was commenced
               by the Police which culminated in submission of a chargesheet.
       ii.     After submission of the charge sheet, the Magistrate took
               cognizance and committed the case for trial to the Court of
               Sessions, Bulandshahar3. The trial has proceeded substantially.
               After closure of the prosecution evidence, presently the matter
               has reached at the stage of recording the statement of the
               accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
               1973.
       iii.    Riyasuddin-Respondent No.2 had earlier applied for bail which
               stood rejected not only by the Trial Court but also by the High
               Court on 11.03.2024. It is the second bail application of the
               Respondent No.2 which has since been allowed by the High
               Court only for the reason that the Respondent No.2 would
               be deprived of effective defence strategy and that any further
               incarceration would prevent him from gathering evidence and
               tendering the same before the Trial Court to establish his
               innocence. The relevant paragraph no. 6 of the impugned order



1    Hereinafter referred to as “High Court”
2    Hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No.2”
3    Hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”
1478                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          containing the reasoning given by the High Court is reproduced
          hereunder:
               “Continued incarceration of the applicant will disable
               his from crafting an effective defence strategy and
               prevent his from gathering evidence in his support
               thereof and tendering the same before the learned
               trial court to establish his innocence. Further detention
               of the applicant will be detrimental to his defence in
               the trial and inconsistent with the norms of fairness
               in criminal processual jurisprudence.”
    iv.   The High Court relied upon a decision of another coordinate
          Bench, in the case of Prabhat Gangwar vs. State of U.P.
          (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2586 of 2023) which is
          mentioned in the paragraph 7 of the impugned order, along
          with the relevant extract. The said paragraph of the impugned
          order is reproduced hereunder:
               “This Court in Prabhat Gangwar vs. State of U. P.
               (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2586 of 2023)
               while considering the grant of enlarging an accused on
               bail for preparing his defence and gathering evidence
               to tender the same before the learned trial court for
               establishing his innocence held:
                    “Nature and gravity of the offence is
                    certainly liable to be considered by the
                    court while considering grant of bail. The
                    Court has also to factor the likelihood
                    of whether the accused committed the
                    offence while deciding a bail application.
                    The court also has to determine in the
                    facts of the case whether the accused
                    needs to be set at liberty to frame his
                    defence and gather evidence to refute
                    the prosecution case and establish his
                    innocence. The bail court has to examine
                    whether continued incarceration would
                    disable the accused from tendering an
                    effective defence of his case. This is a
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                        1479

                    Irfan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


                      demand of processual fairness in criminal
                      jurisprudence.
                      Setting an accused at liberty at large
                      on this ground cannot be applied
                      mechanically in all cases. The issue
                      has to be considered in the facts and
                      circumstances of each case while doing
                      so. All relevant facts including the
                      evidences in the record, the conduct
                      of the accused during the investigation
                      as well as trial have to be adverted to
                      before a decision is made in this regard.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

4.   In the case of Prabhat Gangwar (supra) the Coordinate Bench
     of the High Court clearly stated that in an application for grant of
     bail, the Court is competent to set an accused on liberty in order to
     afford him an opportunity to frame his defence and gather evidence,
     to enable him to refute the prosecution case and establish his
     innocence. However, the Court cautioned that such liberty on the
     said ground cannot be applied mechanically and would require to be
     considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. All relevant
     facts including the evidence on record, conduct of the accused during
     the investigation as well as the trial have to be adverted to before
     a decision is made in this regard for enlarging the accused on bail.
5.   The view expressed in Prabhat Gangwar (supra) may be applied
     in rare cases but that too would have to be considered in the light
     of the observations made therein. However, from the impugned
     order, we find that the High Court failed to evaluate the facts and
     circumstances of the present case especially the conduct of the
     accused, and in a blanket manner proceeded to grant bail solely
     on the ground that further incarceration will deprive the accused
     from an effective defence strategy. Apparently, no such basis has
     been set out by Respondent No.2 for seeking bail as to what kind of
     defence strategy and the evidence that was required to be collected
     or what were the special facts and circumstances of the case which
     required this kind of indulgence. We are, therefore, not satisfied with
     the impugned order and are accordingly inclined to set it aside.
1480                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


6.   Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 made strenuous submissions
     that since the trial is at the stage of conclusion as such this Court
     may not interfere with the impugned order. He thus, urged that the
     Court may consider issuing appropriate direction to conclude the trial.
7.   On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted
     that if the order of the High Court is bad in law, it is to be set aside,
     and no indulgence is to be granted in favour of Respondent No.2. An
     erroneous order cannot be allowed to stand and should be set aside.
8.   Having considered the submissions and having expressed our prima
     facie view, we are unable to sustain the impugned order. Once we
     have found the order to be erroneous, it deserves to be set aside.
9.   The appeal is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated
     12.05.2025 is set aside.
10. Respondent No.2 shall surrender within four weeks from today, failing
    which the prosecuting agency as well as the Trial Court would be at
    liberty to take appropriate coercive measures to secure the custody
    of the Respondent No.2.
11. We further direct the Trial Court to conclude the trial within three
    months from the date on which the certified copy of this order is
    before the Trial Court. It goes without saying that the prosecution and
    defence shall extend full cooperation for the completion of the trial.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey