Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sandeep Tewari vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 7 May, 2026
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2413/2026
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7289/2026]
SANDEEP TEWARI APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
& ANR. RESPONDENTS
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. A learned Judge of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, by the impugned order
dated 10th October, 2025, released the
application for bail1 of the appellant and directed
its listing before another Bench.
3. Appellant, figuring as an accused in FIR
No.0322 of 2021 dated 21st September, 2021
1 Criminal Misc. Bail Appln. No.42337/2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2026.05.08
16:02:36 IST
Reason: Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.7289/2026
2
registered at Police Station George Town, District
Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was arrested on
23rd September, 2021.
4. It is the claim of the appellant that his bail
application has been listed on more than thirty
occasions during the last two years but for some
reason or the other, including the reason that
the application could not be heard on sixteen
occasions because of paucity of time, hearing
stood adjourned with the result that there has
been no final decision on such application
despite considerable lapse of time.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 (State of Uttar Pradesh),
learned counsel for the respondent no.2 (Central
Bureau of Investigation) as well as the learned
counsel appearing for the complainant.
6. The aforesaid claim of the appellant has not
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.7289/2026
3
been seriously disputed by the respondents
although it does appear that on certain
occasions adjournments were granted by the
High Court because learned counsel for the
appellant had so prayed.
7. Be that as it may, having regard to the
period of pre-trial incarceration suffered by the
appellant, it is indeed a matter of concern that
the bail application despite being listed on more
than thirty occasions during the last two years
has not been considered on merits and finally
disposed of.
8. We have noted that charge-sheet under
Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed accusing the
appellant and the co-accused of offences
punishable under Sections 306 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
9. While the prosecution proposes to examine
150 witnesses to drive home the charges against
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.7289/2026
4
the appellant, evidence of only 3 witnesses has
been recorded till date.
10. It is in view of such circumstances that we
propose to interfere, despite the fact of
pendency of the application for bail before the
High Court.
11. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are
of the considered opinion that further detention
of the appellant pending trial is not necessary;
and, since the appeal deserves acceptance, the
appellant may be admitted to an order for grant
of bail.
12. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant
shall be released on bail, subject to furnishing of
bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court
and subject to such other terms and conditions
as may be imposed by it.
13. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not,
directly or indirectly, by making inducement,
threat or promise, dissuade any person
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.7289/2026
5
acquainted with the facts of the case from
disclosing such facts to the court.
14. In the event there is any breach of the
terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial
court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the
appellant.
15. It is also ordered that the appellant shall
diligently attend proceedings of the trial, unless
exempted. If he abstains from attending the
proceedings without justifiable cause, that could
also be seen as breach of the conditions for
grant of bail and the trial court will be free to
pass appropriate orders.
16. We clarify that the observations made in
this order and grant of bail will not be treated as
findings on the merits of the case.
17. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the
aforesaid terms.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.7289/2026
6
19. In view of this order, Criminal Misc. Bail
Appln. No.42337/2024 before the High Court also
stands disposed of.
…………………………………….J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
……………………………………..J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
New Delhi;
May 07, 2026.
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.7289/2026
7
ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.8 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.7289/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 10-10-2025 in CRMBA No. 42337/2024 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad]
SANDEEP TEWARI Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondents
I.A. No.103778/2026-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
I.A. No.103781/2026-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 07-05-2026 This matter was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
For Petitioner(s) :Dr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, AOR
Mr. Man Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. K. Jayakaran, Adv.
Mrs. Amita Agarwal, Adv.
Mrs. Mamta Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shweta Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Saurabh, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Kumar Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Amarjeet Sahani, Adv.
Dr. Dere Kishor Shankar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR
Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv.
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.7289/2026
8
Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv.
Mr. Mohan Prasad Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the
following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file)
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.7289/2026
