Limits of Bail Jurisdiction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently vide its judgment dated 19.12.2025, in a case titled as “Lakshmanan v. State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors.”[1] set aside a High Court order that granted bail to accused persons who had allegedly murdered a key witness while previously out on bail.

In the present case, an incident took place where two Schedule caste persons were allegedly attacked by an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. Thereafter, an FIR was registered u/s 147, 148, 307, 324 and 323 IPC, along with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused persons moved a bail application and were granted bail in September 2020. However, while they were released on bail, the accused persons allegedly murdered one of the key witnesses/complainant to the first incident. This led to registration of a second FIR under Section 302 IPC. After the said incidents transpired, the High Court cancelled the bail in March 2023, and the accused person surrendered.

Despite the said events, Hon’ble High Court of the Madras granted fresh bail to the accused in the case arising out of the First FIR. The bail was granted after multiple rounds of rejection and despite earlier bail cancellation. It further directed that a joint trial be conducted of both these cases which were arising out of different FIRs. The said order was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court by the other victim/complainant who had survived after the first incident took place.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to observe that the criminal antecedents of the accused persons were placed before the High Court and were recorded in the impugned order. Despite the same, the Hon’ble High Court failed to assess their relevance and the likelihood of reoffending, intimidation of witnesses, or obstruction of justice. The Hon’ble High Court in its impugned order recorded the antecedents as without evaluating their impact. It was also noted that the High Court had been influenced by the civil dispute that existed between the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that it is settled law that the pendency of civil litigation neither dilutes criminal liability nor overrides considerations of gravity, antecedents, or witness safety.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment reiterated that Section 219 Cr.P.C. permits joinder of charges only where a person is accused of more than one offence of the same kind, committed within a period of twelve months and punishable under the same provisions of the penal law or local law or special law, subject to a maximum of three offences.

This provision of joinder of charges constitutes a limited exception to the general rule contained in Section 218 Cr.P.C., which mandates separate trials for distinct offences. It further went on to observe that Hon’ble High Court while issuing the impugned direction, did not examine the dates of the alleged offences, the time gap between the incidents, the nature and scope of the offences, the roles attributed to the accused or the stage of proceedings in the respective cases. Further it failed to give any finding as to how the statutory requirements for a joint trial were satisfied in the said case.

The Ld. Trial Court possesses the discretion to decide whether to hold a joint or separate trial and the said decision is to be made after evaluating potential prejudice that could be caused to the parties, logistical convenience, and the efficient use of judicial resources. By directing that a joint trial be held during a bail hearing, the Hon’ble High Court overstepped its authority and restricted the trial court’s power to exercise that discretion. This direction for holding a joint trial also exceeds the narrow legal boundaries of bail jurisdiction.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Hon’ble High Court cannot order joint trial of two separate cases without adhering to due process or giving compelling legal justifications as required by Sections 218 to 223 of the Cr.P.C. and the equivalent provisions of the BNSS.

About the Author:

Yashvi Aswani is a Principal Associate at Pratap & Co. with experience in litigation and legal counselling, focusing on drafting and case preparation before multiple forums.

[1] LAKSHMANAN VERSUS STATE THROUGH THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE & ORS. ETC. [2025 INSC 1483]