Mr. Mohseen, the accused surrendered after 42 days. He says he filed a Review Petition. Is that not a bona fide reason for the delay?

My Lord, the filing of a Review Petition does not operate as an automatic stay upon the original order. This Court directed the accused to surrender forthwith. He was bound to comply immediately. Instead, he absconded, forcing the Trial Court to issue an NBW and then initiate Section 82 CrPC proceedings. A Review Petition can be filed even after surrender. The accused deliberately evaded arrest. This conduct shows that he has no respect for the judicial process. If he is released on bail again, there is every likelihood that he will abscond or intimidate witnesses. This Court should take a serious view of such contumacious conduct.

The High Court granted bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Aurangzeb. Why is that not applicable?

My Lord, parity is not an inflexible rule. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., this Court held that parity cannot be mechanically applied when the roles of the accused are materially different. Here, the role of Aurangzeb is primarily assault by knife. The specific role of firing with a country-made pistol is attributed to Respondent No. 2 alone. Moreover, a pistol and live cartridge were recovered at the instance of Respondent No. 2, and offences under the Arms Act have been added against him. Aurangzeb faces no such charges. The cases are not identically placed. The High Court erred in applying parity without examining the material differences.

The High Court noted that no firearm injuries were sustained. Does that not weaken the prosecution case under Section 307 IPC?

My Lord, the absence of firearm injuries does not negate a charge under Section 307 IPC. Section 307 requires the doing of an act with intent or knowledge that it can cause death. If the accused fires a weapon at the victim with intent to kill, but the victim escapes by chance, the offence is complete. The bullets did not strike the victims — that is a matter of luck, not a lack of intention. The accused cannot take advantage of his poor aim. The CCTV footage shows him brandishing a pistol. Multiple witnesses heard gunshots. The accused himself admitted to firing. The absence of injuries is not a ground for bail.

The accused has been in custody for 7.5 months. The trial may take time. Is continued incarceration justified?

My Lord, the accused is charged with serious offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act. He has a history of absconding after his bail was cancelled by this Court. The trial has commenced — charges have been framed and 12 witnesses are cited. The trial can be expedited. The threat to the petitioner and his family — who are witnesses in the murder case — is real. The accused and his co-accused have already been convicted in the murder case. They have every motive to intimidate witnesses. The safety of witnesses is paramount. Incarceration is justified in these circumstances.

For PetitionerCriminal Premium

High Court Ignored SC Order, Evidence, and Accused's Absconding — (2026) INSC 526

Mohseen v. State of Uttar Pradesh — (2026) INSC 526

Core Argument

The High Court granted bail without engaging with the Supreme Court's earlier bail cancellation order, ignored CCTV evidence and recovery of the weapon, overlooked the accused's conduct of absconding for 42 days, and erroneously applied the principle of parity without considering the materially different role of the co-accused.

Key Precedents

Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 — Held that an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference; bail can be revoked if courts below have ignored relevant material or the gravity of the offence.
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508 — Held that the principle of parity in bail is not an inflexible rule and cannot be mechanically applied when the roles of the accused are materially different.
Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 4 SCC 781 — Held that courts must recognise the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims and witnesses if the accused is released on bail.
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 — Held that bail orders must reveal the factors that weighed with the Court for granting relief; mere recitation of 'facts and circumstances' does not constitute a reasoned order.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in