Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in Constable's Murder Case: Police Inquiry Found Duty Entries Made in Her Absence

Published: 29 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order granting bail to a policeman accused of murdering his wife, a woman constable. The High Court relied on general-diary entries showing her on duty in the days when, by the postmortem, she had died. A police report finding those entries recorded without her presence was available but not placed before it. The bail plea returns to the High Court; the accused must surrender by 02.11.2026 (paras 5-16).

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in Constable's Murder Case: Police Inquiry Found Duty Entries Made in Her Absence

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Cancelled

Pooja Pal v. Indresh Maurya & Anr.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14708 of 2026 (against the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, order of 25.05.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12359/2025)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 26 October 2026
Bench: Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli
Relevant Acts & Sections: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 103(1), 351(3) and 238

Final Outcome

Special leave petition disposed of. The High Court's order granting bail is set aside (bail cancelled) and the bail application remitted for fresh consideration; respondent No. 1 must surrender before the concerned court on or before 02.11.2026 (paras 15-19).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 26.10.2026

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

The High Court granted bail on general-diary entries showing the deceased on duty when, by the postmortem, she had died (paras 5-6).
A police report of 02.08.2025 found the entries recorded although she was not present; it was available but not placed before the High Court (paras 9-10, 13).
A later inquiry report reached the same view, and three police employees were censured (paras 8, 11-12).
The bail order of 25.05.2026 is set aside and the bail application remitted for fresh consideration (para 15).
The accused must surrender by 02.11.2026; the High Court will consider bail independently (paras 16-17).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

FIR No. 319/2025 was registered on 30.07.2025 at Masauli Police Station, District Barabanki, under Sections 103(1), 351(3) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), against respondent No. 1, husband of the deceased; both were police employees (paras 2-4, 8). He was arrested on 31.07.2025/01.08.2025; the trial court refused bail on 21.11.2025 (para 4). On 20.05.2026 the High Court called for the general diary, which showed the deceased on duty on 27, 28 and 29 July 2025. As the postmortem placed death 3 to 4 days before 30.07.2025, the High Court thought the body might be someone else's and granted bail on 25.05.2026 (paras 4-6). The deceased's sister, the complainant, challenged it (paras 1-3).

Court's Findings

As directed, the State produced a report of 02.08.2025 by the Circle Officer, Haidergarh, given barely three days after the body was found, a detailed inquiry report of 27.05.2026 and orders censuring three police employees (paras 8-10). The first report found that two head constables had recorded the deceased's departures and arrivals for mela duty on 27-29 July 2025 although she was not physically present, and stated that she was murdered on 27.07.2025 (para 9). The detailed report concluded that the entries were made without her ever being present and found lax supervision by the inspector in charge of the police station (para 11); each employee concerned was censured (para 12). The detailed report came two days after the bail order, so the High Court did not have it; but the report of 02.08.2025, though available, was not placed before it by the prosecution (paras 10, 13). The High Court had proceeded on the assumed fact that the deceased was on duty on those dates (para 13). In the teeth of these reports, the Court held it only fair and proper that the High Court take a fresh look (para 14).

Legal Principle

Where a bail order rests on an assumed fact that the police's own inquiry reports contradict, and one such report was available but not placed before the bail court, it is only fair that the court look again; the order may be set aside, the application remitted and the accused required to surrender (paras 13-16).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

This order shows what can happen when a bail court sees only part of the record. The High Court asked for the general diary and relied on its duty entries; a police report questioning those entries had existed since 02.08.2025 but was not placed before it (paras 5, 10, 13). The Supreme Court set the bail aside and ordered surrender, yet left the merits to the High Court (paras 15-17). When a court calls for a record, the prosecution should place any related inquiry report too, and complainants can bring such material to the court's notice. Compare Shahmeena Nadeem, a Supreme Court order on cancellation of bail and suppression of material facts.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Topics: Cancellation of Bail Culpable Homicide and Murder Suppression of Material Facts

NyayVidhan

Court Judgments · 3 min read

Decided: October 26, 2026 Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli

PDF

Case Summary

Court

Supreme Court of India

Case No.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14708 of 2026 (against the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, order of 25.05.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12359/2025)

Decided

October 26, 2026

Bench

Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 103(1), 351(3) and 238

View PDF