1. Appeal against grant of regular bail in a contract killing case involving murder and conspiracy under the IPC and Explosive Substances Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1236
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Ansar Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1168, 1169 of 2023, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8487, 8540 of 2021
Decided On : 18-04-2023
Important Points
The Court distinguished between cancelling bail due to supervening circumstances and challenging a bail order for improper exercise of discretion. It emphasized that bail orders must reflect judicial application of mind, considering the offense's gravity, criminal antecedents, and the necessity of protecting vital witnesses.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail and Pre-Trial Release
Act Referred
Headnote
Bail - Criminal Conspiracy - Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the nature of the accusation, severity of the offense, the accused's criminal record, and the likelihood of influencing witnesses. The court emphasized the importance of considering the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge and the distinct facts of each case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant seeks to challenge the grant of bail to the respondents who were involved in a criminal conspiracy resulting in the murder of Ashfaque Ahmad.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court did not adequately consider the relevant material while granting bail to the respondents, and the stage for granting bail without adverse impact on the prosecution case had not been reached.
Issues: The issues revolved around the grant of bail to the respondents, considering the nature of the offense, the accused's criminal record, and the impact on the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge, the distinct facts of each case, and the likelihood of influencing witnesses while granting bail.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the impugned orders granting regular bail to the private respondents were set aside, and the respondents were directed to surrender before the Trial Court. The Trial Court was directed to decide the case expeditiously and make an endeavor to conclude the trial within one year.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Siddharth Dave, Talha Abdul Rahman, Vidhi Thaker, M. Shaz Khan, Gayatri Dahiya.
For the Respondents: Sharan Thakur, Rohit K. Singh, Siddharth Thakur, Mustafa Sajad, Divyesh Pratap Singh, Vikram Pratap Singh, Kavinesh Rm, Shivangi Singh, Ishita Bedi, Ranjana Singh, Ajay Prabu, Shivani Singh, S.R. Setia, K.B. Upadhyay, C.P. Pandey, S.N. Tripathi, Pinki Tiwari, Shailesh Tiwari, Basant R.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Siddharth Dave, Talha Abdul Rahman, Vidhi Thaker, M. Shaz Khan, Gayatri Dahiya.
For the Respondents: Sharan Thakur, Rohit K. Singh, Siddharth Thakur, Mustafa Sajad, Divyesh Pratap Singh, Vikram Pratap Singh, Kavinesh Rm, Shivangi Singh, Ishita Bedi, Ranjana Singh, Ajay Prabu, Shivani Singh, S.R. Setia, K.B. Upadhyay, C.P. Pandey, S.N. Tripathi, Pinki Tiwari, Shailesh Tiwari, Basant R.
Table of Contents
2. Whether bail should be cancelled based on supervening circumstances or whether the original grant of bail was illegal and arbitrary. (Para 14 )
3. The High Court ignored the gravity of the offence, the accused's criminal history, and the necessity of recording vital witness statements before granting bail. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Challenging a bail order focuses on the illegality or arbitrary exercise of discretion, whereas cancellation of bail depends on supervening circumstances or misuse of liberty. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
5. Appeals allowed; bail orders set aside; respondents directed to surrender, with liberty to apply for bail after examination of material witnesses. (Para 19 , 20 )
6. What parameters should a court consider when exercising discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail?
The court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, status of the accused, likelihood of influencing witnesses, risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice, possibility of repeating the offence, and prima facie satisfaction of the charges. (Para 10 )
7. What is the legal distinction between an application for cancellation of bail and a challenge to the order granting bail?
Cancellation of bail typically requires supervening circumstances or misuse of liberty. Conversely, challenging a bail order questions the legality of the process, alleging improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion by the court at the time bail was granted. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. When is it generally expedient to consider a prayer for bail in criminal proceedings?
It is generally in the interest of the criminal justice system to consider bail applications after ensuring that the statements of vital witnesses have been recorded to prevent the likelihood of influencing or tampering with evidence. (Para 12 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant seeks to assail two orders of even date i.e. 23.09.2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow whereby the Bail Application No. 624 of 2019, filed by the respondent-Subhash Yadav, and Bail Application No. 4309 of 2019, filed by the respondent-Rajesh Vikram Singh, in Case Crime No. 17 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Police Station Jagdishpur, District Amethi were allowed and both the abovementioned respondents have been enlarged on regular bail.
3. The allegations are that the appellant along with his son - Ashfaque Ahmad and his companions were present in front of Jagdishpur Branch of Vijaya Bank when the accused Vanshraj Yadav attacked Ashfaque Ahmad by throwing a grenade, and thereafter, Satai and other accused persons started indiscriminate firing due to which, Ashfaque Ahmad died on the spot and Razi Ahmad @ Manu received injuries. Two accused persons were caught hold on the spot with the help of public. One of them disclosed his name, Amit Chaubey S/o Vindhyachal Chaubey, resident of Bihar while the second accused did not disclose his name. Two country made pistols, two magazines and one mobile phone were recovered from their possession. During the course of interrogation, accused-Amit Chaubey disclosed that the respondent (Rajesh Vikram Singh) and his brother had sent the accused persons for committing the murder of Ashfaque Ahmad. In the FIR, registered on the statement of the appellant, it is further mentioned that a sum of Rs. 2,47,700/- cash was recovered from the accused persons, who were caught by the public. It was alleged to be a case of contract killing.
4. During the course of investigation, it was found that while one of the respondents (Subhash Yadav) was allegedly present at the spot at the time of occurrence, the other respondent (Rajesh Vikram Singh) was a part of the conspiracy hatched to eliminate Ashfaque Ahmad. The motive behind elimination of Ashfaque Ahmad was that his father-in-law was a witness in another criminal case registered against Rajesh Vikram Singh under Section 302 IPC in which the above-named respondent was eventually convicted.
5. One of the accused, who allegedly participated in the occurrence, namely, Satish Kumar @ Satai applied for his bail and the High Court vide an order dated 03.09.2021 rejected his prayer observing as follows:
“Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the F.I.R. injury report of the applicant, ante mortem injury of the deceased and the medico legal report of the injured Razi as well as the contents of the F.I.R. No. 168 of 2018 lodged by the wife of the applicant and also considering the criminal antecedent so the applicant, I am of the view that no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.”
6. It appears that during the pendency of the above-stated bail application, the respondents (Subhash Yadav and Rajesh Vikram Singh) also moved the High Court for their enlargement on bail. In the case of Subhash Yadav, it was categorically pointed out before the High Court that he was involved in at least 14 criminal cases and was already a convict under Section 302 IPC. While on bail in that case, he was found involved in the murder of Ashfaque Ahmad, in the bail application of the respondent-Rajesh Vikram Singh, the High Court was apprised of the fact that there are 26 criminal cases registered against him, of course, in some of which, he has already been acquitted and in a few cases, he was on bail. In one of the cases - Crime No. 229/2004, under Section 302 IPC etc. he was convicted and in Criminal Appeal No. 497/2008, his conviction and sentence were suspended.
7. The High Court briefly narrated the prosecution case and after noticing the contentions from both sides, concluded that “considering th
