Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 302

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Aqeel Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1947 of 2024 Arising Out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8347 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 1948 of 2024, Arising Out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8348 of 2023 Criminal Appeal No. 1949 of 2024, Arising Out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4866 of 2024, D. No. 53136 of 2023
Decided On : 05-04-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Naghma Imtiaz, Adv. Mr. Zargham Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Saif Naseem, Adv. M/S. Equity Lex Associates, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Srishti Singh, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
An undeserving bail order cannot be allowed to stand.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437 (5) and 439(2) – Grant of bail – Challenge by informant – Private Respondents herein are accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 336, 427 of IPC – Appellant, who is informant in the case registered on account of death of his elder brother was threatened of dire consequences by accused – Respondents were specifically named in FIR – Bail to respondents was granted without even noticing facts in detail – Post-mortem report suggests that deceased was severely assaulted – His ribs were fractured and injuries caused to deceased were sufficient to cause his death – Reasons for cancellation of bail granted by High Court to co-accused by Supreme Court also assume relevance in context of challenge made against impugned orders – Proprio vigore such reasons will apply in case of orders impugned in captioned appeals as well – Impugned orders cannot be legally sustained, same are accordingly set aside – Bail granted to respondents cancelled. (Paras 4, 5, 7, 7.1, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in present appeals is to the orders passed by High Court. Respondent No.2 in each of appeals were granted bail by the High Court. Challenge has been made by informant.
Findings of Court:
Respondents shall be at liberty to move fresh application for bail at any appropriate stage, which shall be considered on its own merits.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in the present appeals is to the orders¹ [Dated 28.03.2023 passed in Crl. M.B.A. No. 13988 of 2023, dated 07.04.2023 passed in Crl. M.B.A. No. 14388 of 2023 and dated 14.12.2023 passed in Crl. M.B.A. No. 53539 of 2023, respectively] passed by the High Court.² [High Court of Judicature at Allahabad] The Respondent No. 2 in each of the appeals, namely, Abdullah, Nasir and Muzammil were granted bail by the High Court. The challenge has been made by the informant.

3. The private Respondents herein are accused in FIR No. 0359 dated 15.10.2022 registered at Gambhirpur, Aazamgarh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 336, 427 of IPC, registered on account of murder of Khursheed Ahmad.

3.1 In Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8347 of 2023, initially respondent no. 2/Abdullah filed bail application before the Trial Court, which was rejected vide order dated 16.02.2023. Thereafter, he moved the bail application before the High Court, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 28.03.2023. The ground raised was that one of the co-accused/Neyaz Ahmad had been enlarged on bail by the High Court vide order dated 22.02.2023.³ [Passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5775 of 2023]

3.2 In Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8348 of 2023, the respondent no. 2/Nasir filed bail application before the High Court, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 07.04.2023. The ground raised was that one of the co-accused/Abdullah has been enlarged on bail by the High Court vide order dated 28.03.2023.⁴ [Subject to challenge in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8347 of 2023]

3.3 In the Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Diary No. 53136 of 2023, the respondent no. 2/Muzammil filed bail application before the High Court, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 14.12.2023. The ground raised was that general allegations of assaulting the deceased have been made against all the accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to the respondent no. 2/Muzammil.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the bail was granted to the respondent-Abdullah he had merely undergone imprisonment for 4 months and 19 days; the respondent-Nasir had undergone imprisonment for 5 months and 11 days and respondent- Muzammil had undergone imprisonment for 1 year and 2 months. They are accused of a serious offence of the murder of Khursheed Ahmad. The High Court did not even refer to the arguments of the respondent no. 1/State. Bail was granted to the respondent/Abdullah merely referring to the fact that another accused/Neyaz Ahmad had been granted bail by the High Court. Bail was granted to the respondent/Nasir referring to the order passed in the case of Abdullah. In the case of the respondent/Muzammil, the facts were not considered in detail. It was only recorded that he claimed himself to be innocent and ready to abide by any conditions. Despite objection by the State counsel, bail was granted to the said respondents. There is clear involvement of the said respondents in the crime to which the appellant was an eyewitness.

5. The appellant, who is informant in the case registered on account of death of his elder brother was threatened of dire consequences by the accused-Abdullah for which he had filed a complaint dated 16.01.2023 with the Chief Minister of the State. It was also argued that the bail granted to the co-accused/Neyaz Ahmad was cancelled by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2023.⁵ [Passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 2023]

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents (Abdullah, Nasir and Muzammil) submitted that it is a case in which the appellant had falsely implicated the said respondents. Their further incarceration during the pendency of the matter will amount to injustice to them. There is no error in the orders passed by the High Court and the appeals deserve to be dismissed.

7. After hearing the learned counsel fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document