NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday cancelled the bail granted by the Allahabad HC to a man accused of killing a woman and concealing her body inside the septic tank inside his home.
SC held that the High Court’s order was perverse and passed without proper appreciation of the gravity of the offence.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed the appeal filed by Gulabkali, mother of the deceased Rajkeshar Chaudhary, and set aside the Allahabad HC’s September 02, 2025 order granting bail to the accused, Aashish Gautam alias Arvind Kumar.
The top court, in its order, said that the HC had ignored serious allegations and strong circumstantial evidence that directed the accused to surrender in two weeks.
Advocates Rajesh G. Inamdar and Shashwat Anand, appearing for the victim’s mother, argued that the HC had released the accused without properly examining the seriousness of the allegations and the material collected during the investigation, submissions that were found favour with the Bench.
As recorded in the Supreme Court’s order, the prosecution's case states that the accused, Kumar, was in a relationship with the woman he killed.
He murdered her after his marriage was fixed with another woman.
He is said to have killed her at his newly constructed house in Karchhana, Prayagraj, with the assistance of his friends, Surendra Pratap, Rakesh Yadav and Deepak Chamar, concealed the body inside a septic tank, covered it with sand and bricks, and sealed it with cement to prevent discovery.
The dead body was later recovered following the accused’s memorandum statement to the police.
Appearing for the accused, Senior Advocate Sudhir Kumar Saxena contended that the principles governing cancellation of bail differ from those applicable at the stage of grant of bail.
He argued that once the bail had been granted, interference would ordinarily require proof of misuse of liberty or supervening circumstances.
The Supreme Court, however, underscored the distinction between cancelling bail for misconduct and setting aside a bail order that is itself perverse, unjustified or legally flawed.
The SC observed that where a bail order is passed on irrelevant considerations or without proper appreciation of the gravity of the offence and the material on record, a superior court is empowered to annul it.
Holding that the HC had failed to adequately consider the serious allegations of murder and the strong circumstantial evidence, including recovery of the body at the accused’s own instance, the top court termed the bail order unsustainable.
While directing the accused to surrender within two weeks, the Supreme Court clarified that he would be free to seek bail again at an appropriate stage if the trial is unduly delayed.
The ruling sends a strong signal that, in cases involving grave offences, courts must weigh personal liberty against the seriousness of the crime and the strength of the evidence and that the bail orders passed without due scrutiny will not escape appellate correction.