Five eyewitnesses turning hostile did not keep a Lucknow murder accused out of jail. The Supreme Court has cancelled his bail, holding that courts should ordinarily be loath to grant bail in serious offences while the trial is under way and a material witness is yet to be examined.
New Delhi: Within two weeks, Aditya Dev Pathak, who is accused of shooting dead a young woman with an illegal pistol in 2023, must surrender before the jurisdictional court, the Supreme Court has directed, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench order that had granted him bail [Santosh Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another].
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order on October 16, 2026. The special leave petition before them was filed by the deceased’s father, Santosh Kumar Tiwari, against the High Court’s order of August 20, 2026.
The Bench’s reasoning on bail during trial
Where the trial is under way, courts should ordinarily be loath to grant bail in serious offences, the Bench recalled from its ruling in X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539. It applied that principle and held:
“Considering that a material witness remains to be examined in the trial, and the serious allegations against respondent No.2, we are of the opinion that the bail granted to respondent No.2 ought to be cancelled.”
If Pathak fails to surrender, the trial court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure his custody, the Court said. The impugned order was set aside and the special leave petition was disposed of.
The allegations against Pathak are yet to be tested at trial. Cancellation of bail is not a finding of guilt, and he remains entitled to the presumption of innocence.
The FIR, the charge and the High Court’s ground for bail
FIR No. 412 of 2023 was registered at Chinhat police station, Lucknow East, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution’s case is that Pathak befriended the petitioner’s daughter, a B.Com third-year student, through social media and allegedly shot her with a country-made pistol at his flat on the intervening night of September 20 and 21, 2023. A charge sheet has been filed and the trial is under way.
Pathak has denied the charge. He has claimed that he was in a relationship with the deceased, relied on WhatsApp chats in support, and contended that the shooting was accidental because she mishandled the firearm believing it was not loaded.
Bail had been granted by the High Court on the ground that five eyewitnesses had turned hostile during the trial.
Hostile witnesses and the stage of the trial
Witnesses turning hostile is not, on its own, a sufficient reason to release an accused in a serious offence while the trial is still running, the order reaffirms. The risk to the integrity of the trial weighs heavily against bail where material witnesses remain to be examined.
The order also shows the Supreme Court’s continued willingness to interfere with bail orders that overlook the gravity of the charge and the stage of trial, applying the caution it laid down in X v. State of Rajasthan.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another [SLP (Crl.) No. 18193/2026]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 16, 2026
Appearances: A.R. Masoodi, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner; Shaurya Sahay and Ravindra S. Garia, AORs, for the respondents