Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation

“An Appeal Against Grant of Bail Cannot Be Treated as an Application for Cancellation”, In a vital clarification for criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court on 13 Feb 2026, has drawn a sharp and much-needed distinction between an appeal challenging the grant of bail and an application seeking cancellation of bail.

While setting aside the anticipatory bail granted to an accused who had allegedly absconded for six years in a murder case, the Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that post-bail conduct of the accused is irrelevant when a superior court examines the legality of the original bail order.

The Court observed in clear terms that “post-bail conduct is never a valid consideration while dealing with an appeal against grant of bail,” and such conduct becomes relevant only in proceedings for cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC.

The Defence Argument: “No Misuse of Liberty After Bail”

One of the principal arguments advanced by the accused was that since the grant of regular bail by the trial court, no complaint had been lodged alleging misuse of liberty, interference with witnesses, or violation of bail conditions.

The defence sought to portray the appeal as a retaliatory measure driven by personal vendetta, arguing that in the absence of any post-bail misconduct, the anticipatory bail order should not be disturbed.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected this line of reasoning.

Appeal vs. Cancellation: Two Distinct Legal Standards

The Bench relied on settled jurisprudence, including Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and the recent decision in Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi, to explain that the legal test in an appeal against grant of bail is fundamentally different from cancellation proceedings.

The Court reiterated:

“The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether the discretion exercised in granting bail was improper or arbitrary.”

An appellate court must examine whether the order granting bail is “perverse, illegal, inconsistent with law, or passed without considering relevant factors such as gravity of the offence and impact on society.”

In contrast, cancellation of bail is generally based on supervening circumstances, including misuse of liberty, violation of bail conditions, or attempts to tamper with evidence after release.

Thus, the argument that the accused had not misused liberty after bail was held to be legally misconceived in an appeal challenging the original order.

“The High Court Must Reflect Application of Mind”

The Supreme Court emphasised that an order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind to relevant considerations, including:

“Nature and gravity of the offence, role attributed to the accused, likelihood of absconding, criminal antecedents, and danger of justice being thwarted.”

The High Court’s order directing the accused to surrender and mandating the trial court to grant regular bail on the same day, without addressing these factors, was found to be unjustified.

The Bench held that when a court fails to consider material aspects such as prolonged abscondence, serious criminal allegations, and witness intimidation, the order granting bail becomes vulnerable to appellate interference.

A Warning Against Misuse of Appellate Jurisdiction

At the same time, the Court clarified that appeals against grant of bail must not be used as tools of retaliation. Quoting the principles laid down in Ashok Dhankad, the Court underscored that such appeals must be confined strictly to examining perversity, illegality, or non-consideration of relevant factors.

The Court balanced two competing concerns — preventing arbitrary interference with liberty on one hand, and correcting legally flawed bail orders on the other.

Strengthening Judicial Discipline in Bail Jurisprudence

By drawing this distinction, the Supreme Court has reinforced judicial discipline in bail jurisprudence.

An appeal against grant of bail is not a second opportunity to argue the merits of the prosecution case, nor is it a forum to test the accused’s subsequent behaviour. It is a scrutiny of the judicial reasoning that led to the grant of bail.

If the original order suffers from non-application of mind, ignores settled parameters, or reflects arbitrary exercise of discretion, it can be set aside irrespective of whether the accused has misused liberty thereafter.

Legality of the Order, Not Conduct After Release, Is the Test

The ruling sends a clear message to trial courts and High Courts alike: the sustainability of a bail order depends on its legal soundness at the time it was passed, not on subsequent developments.

By separating the standards governing appeals and cancellations, the Supreme Court has ensured clarity in bail jurisprudence and reaffirmed that judicial discretion must always be exercised within well-settled legal parameters.

Date of Decision: 13 February 2026