SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1032

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Ajwar – Appellant
Versus
Niyaj Ahmad & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No 1722 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 8139 of 2022)
Decided on : 30-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajul Bhargava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sitab Ali chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Preeti Gupta, AOR Mr. Hamid Ali, Adv. Mr. Gufran Ali, Adv. Ms. Rubina, Adv. Mr. Shamryab Ali, Adv. Mr. Sadik Ali, Adv. Ms. Chitra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sharan Thakur, AAG Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Ms. Vanya Gupta, Adv.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Offence - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352, 504 read with Section 34 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a complaint against ten accused persons for firing at him and his sons, resulting in the death of two sons and serious injuries to others. The first respondent was not named in the FIR but was later implicated during the investigation. The High Court granted bail to the first respondent, citing the nature of the accusation and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found the manner in which the High Court granted bail to be unsatisfactory, as it failed to consider the seriousness of the crime, the role of the accused, and the likelihood of witness tampering and accused's availability for trial. The Court disapproved of the High Court's approach to bail applications.

Issues: The issues included the adequacy of reasons for granting bail, the duty of the Court to consider the circumstances of the case, and the balance between personal liberty and public interest in the administration of criminal justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions when granting or refusing bail, and the need for reasons to be recorded in the order. It highlighted the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case and balancing personal liberty with the public interest in the administration of criminal justice.

Final Decision: The Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail to the first respondent and granted two weeks' time for the first respondent to surrender, clarifying that the observations made in the order shall not affect the merits of the trial.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J

1. Leave granted.

2. A Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, by an order dated 4 August 2022, directed the release of the first respondent on bail in connection with Case Crime No 126 of 2020 registered at Police Station Mundali, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 18601[“IPC”].

3. The First Information Report was registered on 19 May 2020 on the basis of the complaint of the appellant against ten accused persons, namely, Nazim, Abubakar, Waseem, Aslam, Gayyur, Nadeem, Hamid, Akram, Kadir and Danish. The allegation in the FIR is that at around 7.30 pm on the same day, the accused who had prior enmity with the parties discriminately fired at the appellant and his sons and, as a result, two sons of the appellant, Abdul Khaliq and Abdul Majid sustained bullet injuries. Abdul Khaliq died on the spot, while Abdul Majid died on the way to the hospital. The appellant’s nephew is alleged to have been seriously injured during the course of the incident.

4. The postmortem report of the deceased, Abdul Khaliq, indicates that he had received one fire arm injury in the head and the cause of the death was cranio-cerebral damage as a result of an ante mortem firearm injury. The postmortem report of Abdul Majid indicates that he had sustained one firearm entry wound in the abdomen and one corresponding exit wound and the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage caused by the ante mortem firearm injury.

5. Though the first respondent was not named in the FIR, his role is alleged to have emerged during the course of the investigation. In the statement of the appellant under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code 19732[“CrPC”], he was put to question on why first respondent was not named as an accused in the first information report, to which the appellant responded as follows:

    “I have got written the complaint by Saleem (scribe of the FIR) orally and told him the name of Niyaz Ahmad. Niyaz Ahmad was also involved in the occurrence”

6. After the investigation was completed, a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 173 CrPC on 23 June 2020 against the accused, including the first respondent, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 302, 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. The charge-sheet was submitted against eight accused, seven of whom were named in the FIR, while the name of the first respondent was added later. Three other accused were not found to be involved after investigation and thus, charge sheet was not filed against them.

7. Cognizance has been taken and the case has been committed to the Sessions Court where it has been registered as Sessions Trial No 574 of 2020 which is pending in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No 15, Meerut. Charges have been framed. The evidence of the informant, PW 1, has been recorded. During the course of the deposition, PW 1 has adverted to the role of the first respondent. The first bail application filed by the first respondent was dismissed on 29 July 2021 because it was not pressed. The second application for bail filed by the first respondent was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 16 December 2021 in view of the seriousness of the offence and the fact that there is prior enmity between the factions The appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC for expeditious conclusion of the trial. By an order dated 7 May 2022, the High Court directed the Sessions Court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. The first respondent moved the High Court for grant of bail which has resulted in the impugned order dated 4 August 2022.

8. While granting bail, the Single Judge of the High Court has observed as follows:

    “Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conv


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top