Delhi High Court Cancels Murder Accused’s Bail for Incorrect Criminal Antecedent Disclosure; Orders Surrender and Fresh Hearing After New Affidavit and Nominal Roll
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Bail Granted on Wrong Criminal History Statement; Directs Surrender by August 23 and De Novo Bail Consideration
Facts
The petition was filed by Harsh Bhadana @ Manish, the complainant, seeking cancellation of bail granted by the Trial Court on 6 March 2026 to respondent No. 2, Atar Rehman @ Atwa.
The complainant’s principal grievance was that the bail order had been obtained on the basis of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.
During the earlier bail proceedings, counsel for the accused had filed an undertaking stating that the accused was not involved in any other criminal case. The complainant contended that this statement was demonstrably incorrect because the accused had several criminal involvements, including another murder case allegedly committed while he was inside jail.
It was further alleged that during the bail hearing the accused’s counsel represented that the accused had earlier been granted interim bail and had never misused that liberty.
The complainant disputed this assertion as well. According to him, when the accused had been enlarged on interim bail in 2020, he jumped bail, and when police subsequently attempted to apprehend him, he allegedly tried to fire upon the police party.
The accused opposed cancellation, contending that the State and the complainant’s counsel had both been present during the bail hearing and that the Sessions Court had granted bail after considering the totality of circumstances, including the fact that he had already undergone approximately eight years of incarceration.
Issues
The principal issues before the Delhi High Court were:
- Whether the bail order dated 6 March 2026 was liable to be set aside because it had been obtained on the basis of an incorrect undertaking regarding the accused’s criminal antecedents.
- Whether the accused’s alleged earlier misuse of interim bail was a material circumstance that ought to have been accurately disclosed before the Sessions Court.
- Whether the presence of the State and complainant during the original bail hearing cured or neutralised the incorrect disclosure made on behalf of the accused.
- Whether the matter should be finally decided by the High Court or remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration after surrender.
- What procedural safeguards should accompany reconsideration of the bail application.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The complainant argued that the original bail order was vitiated by suppression and misrepresentation.
The first alleged misrepresentation concerned the undertaking filed by counsel for the accused stating that Atar Rehman was not involved in any other case. According to the complainant, the accused had multiple criminal involvements, including another murder case.
The second alleged misrepresentation concerned the accused’s prior conduct while on interim bail.
It had allegedly been represented before the Sessions Court that the accused had previously enjoyed interim bail without misuse. However, the complainant submitted that in 2020 the accused had absconded after release, and when police tried to arrest him, he attempted to shoot at them.
The petitioner therefore contended that the Sessions Court’s exercise of bail discretion rested upon an incomplete and inaccurate factual foundation and required reconsideration.
Respondent’s Arguments
Counsel for Atar Rehman resisted the petition.
He argued that no deliberate suppression could be alleged because both:
- the State; and
- counsel for the complainant
had participated in the bail hearing before the Sessions Court.
According to the respondent, the Trial Court therefore had an opportunity to consider the relevant factual material before granting bail.
The respondent also relied upon the accused’s prolonged incarceration of about eight years as an important circumstance supporting the original order.
During the High Court hearing, however, the accused’s counsel, without prejudice to his rights, offered that the accused would surrender before the jail authorities by 4:00 p.m. on 23 August 2026 and that the bail application could thereafter be reconsidered afresh by the Trial Court.
Analysis of the Law
Correct Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents Is Material to Bail
Although the judgment is brief and does not undertake an extended doctrinal discussion, the High Court placed clear emphasis upon the accuracy of the material placed before a court deciding bail.
The Court expressly recorded that the undertaking filed on behalf of the accused contained incorrect facts and that the affidavit filed by his pairokar was “vague and unspecific.”
Criminal antecedents and previous conduct while on bail are obviously relevant to the discretionary exercise of bail jurisdiction. An incorrect representation that an accused has no other criminal involvement, when substantial antecedents are alleged, can materially affect the court’s assessment of:
- conduct;
- likelihood of absconding;
- possibility of misuse of liberty; and
- overall suitability for release.
The High Court therefore considered it inappropriate to permit the existing bail order to continue without fresh scrutiny on a corrected factual record.
Previous Misuse of Bail
The allegation that Atar Rehman had earlier jumped interim bail and had allegedly attempted to fire at police officers seeking to apprehend him was also treated as a serious circumstance requiring proper consideration.
The High Court did not itself record a final factual finding that those allegations stood proved.
Rather, it concluded that the Sessions Court should reconsider the bail request after the accused surrendered and after complete material concerning his antecedents and custody history was placed before it.
This distinction is important because the High Court did not convert the cancellation proceeding into a final determination of the underlying allegations.
Precedent Analysis
Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Others
The principal authority expressly referred to by the High Court was Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3127.
The Court directed that, when seeking reconsideration of bail, the accused must submit a fresh affidavit in terms of the Supreme Court’s directions in Zeba Khan.
The significance of the direction lies in ensuring accurate disclosure of relevant antecedents and circumstances when bail is sought.
The High Court thus did not merely set aside the earlier order; it required the fresh bail proceedings to begin on a properly verified factual foundation.
Fresh Nominal Roll Directed
The Court also directed the Trial Court to obtain a fresh nominal roll from the jail authorities before reconsidering bail.
This ensured that the Trial Court would have updated information concerning:
- actual custody undergone;
- jail conduct;
- any other relevant incarceration details; and
- the respondent’s current custodial position.
The direction was particularly significant because the accused had relied heavily upon his approximately eight-year period of incarceration.
Long Incarceration Kept Open for Reconsideration
The High Court expressly acknowledged that it was conscious of the accused’s long period of incarceration.
It did not hold that this circumstance had become irrelevant merely because the earlier bail order was being set aside.
Instead, it left the issue entirely open to the Trial Court, directing that the bail application be considered afresh after hearing both sides.
Thus, the judgment does not amount to a determination that the accused is undeserving of bail on merits.
It means only that the earlier bail order could not safely stand on the factual record upon which it was passed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning was essentially procedural and corrective.
First, it accepted that the undertaking filed on behalf of the accused contained incorrect facts.
Second, the supporting affidavit was found vague and lacking specificity.
Third, the respondent himself offered to surrender and have the bail application adjudicated afresh.
In these circumstances, rather than deciding the substantive entitlement to bail itself, the High Court considered the proper course to be:
- setting aside the existing bail order;
- directing surrender;
- requiring a fresh and accurate affidavit;
- obtaining an updated nominal roll; and
- allowing the Sessions Court to reconsider bail independently.
The Court deliberately refrained from making findings on the merits which could prejudice the fresh bail hearing.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the complainant’s petition and set aside the bail order dated 6 March 2026.
Atar Rehman @ Atwa was directed to surrender on or before 23 August 2026.
After surrender, the Trial Court/Sessions Court was directed to consider his bail application afresh.
For the fresh consideration:
- the accused must file a new affidavit complying with Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.;
- the Trial Court must call for a fresh nominal roll from the jail authorities; and
- both sides must be given a proper opportunity of hearing.
The High Court expressly clarified that it had made no observations on the merits of the bail application, and that the Sessions Court should independently decide the matter, including the effect of the accused’s long incarceration.
Key Ratio
A bail order may be set aside where material particulars concerning an accused’s criminal antecedents and prior bail conduct were incorrectly disclosed before the court; the appropriate course may be fresh bail consideration on surrender after complete disclosure, without prejudging the merits.
Case Details
Case: Harsh Bhadana @ Manish v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2291/2026 & CRL.M.A. 16725/2026
CNR: DLHC010119762026
Judge: Justice Manoj Jain
Date: 19 August 2026
Relief Sought: Cancellation of bail granted to Atar Rehman @ Atwa on 6 March 2026
Result: Petition allowed; bail order set aside; accused directed to surrender by 23 August 2026 and bail application ordered to be reconsidered afresh after filing a fresh affidavit and obtaining updated nominal roll.
