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

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 3903

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJWAR – Appellant
Versus
WASEEM – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-002639-002639 - 2024



Bail in serious criminal cases requires careful consideration of the crime's gravity, the accused's role, and potential witness tampering, with inadequate reasoning leading to quashing of bail orders.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352, 504 - Bail applications - The High Court granted bail to accused persons involved in a double murder case, which was challenged by the appellant-complainant. The court found that the High Court's orders lacked adequate reasoning and failed to consider the gravity of the offences and the potential for witness tampering. The court emphasized that bail should not be granted lightly in serious cases and that the previous criminal history of the accused was significant. (Paras 1, 10, 30, 34)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting - The court reiterated that factors such as the seriousness of the crime, the role of the accused, and the likelihood of witness tampering must be considered when granting bail. (Paras 26, 28)

Facts of the case:
The appellant-complainant's two sons were murdered during a shooting incident involving the accused, who had prior enmity with the complainant's family. The accused were granted bail by the High Court, which was contested by the complainant.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the bail orders, stating that the High Court had ignored critical factors such as the severity of the crime and the accused's criminal history.

Issues: The main issues included whether the High Court was justified in granting bail and the adequacy of reasoning in its orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court's orders were unsatisfactory and failed to apply the necessary legal standards for granting bail in serious criminal cases.

Result: The appeals were allowed, and the bail orders were set aside.

JUDGEMENT

2. The present appeals are directed against four different orders passed by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on applications moved by Waseem (accused No. 7)1, Nazim (accused No. 8)2, Aslam (accused No. 2)3 and Abubakar (accused No.1)4 under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure , 19735 for seeking regular bail in respect of 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 Indian Penal Code , 18606. Vide orders dated 07th December, 2022, 13th February, 2023 and 02nd March, 2023 and 21st March, 2023 respectively, the applications filed by Waseem, Nazim, Aslam and Abubakar were allowed by different Benches of the High Court. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant- Complainant has approached this Court.

1 Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) 513 of 2023 2 Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) 2437 of 2023 3 Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13404 of 2023 4 Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 16310 of 2023 5 Cr.P.C. 6 IPC BRIEF FACTS

3. The relevant facts of the case, as recorded in a First Information Report7 registered on the complaint received from the appellant - complainant herein on 19th May, 2020, are that the incident in question had taken place on 19th May, 2020 at 7.30 in the evening when the appellant-complainant, his two sons, Abdul Khaliq and Abdul Majid with some other persons were sitting in the baithak of his house for breaking the fast (Roza Iftar) and preparing to offer prayers. The accused persons (10 in number, namely, Nazim, Abubakar, Waseem, Aslam, Gayyur, Nadeem, Hamid, Akram, Qadir and Danish) arrived at the spot and indiscriminately fired at the appellant and his two sons. Both the sons of the appellant died on the spot and his nephew, Asjad was seriously injured. The appellant-complainant has alleged that there was previous enmity between the parties due to which the accused persons had attacked him and his sons.

4. Pertinently, Niyaz Ahmed, father of Waseem (accused No. 7) was not named in the FIR. His role in the incident came up during the course of the investigation conducted by the police and based thereon, his name was added as a co-accused. On completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on 23rd June, 2020 against eight accused including Abubakar (accused No. 1), Niyaz Ahmad, Aslam (accused No.2) and Nazim (accused No. 8). Aslam is the nephew of Nazir and Nazim is 7 FIR the cousin of Waseem, whose father, Niyaz Ahmad was enlarged on bail by the High Court, vide order dated 4th August 2022, which order was set aside by this Court on 30th September, 2022 in a Criminal Appeal8 filed by the appellant-complainant. Three other accused were not found to be involved in the offence and on conclusion of the investigation, no chargesheet was filed against them.

PROCEEDINGS AFTER FILING OF CHARGESHEET

5. After the chargesheet was filed, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and was registered as Sessions Trial No.574 of 2020. The same is pending trial before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court 15, Meerut. Charges were framed and twenty witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Out of the said list of witnesses, seven are eyewitnesses. The trial has commenced. Four eyewitnesses have been examined so far. Three eyewitnesses are yet to be examined. The statement of the appellant-complainant (PW-1) and three other eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4) have been recorded. The prime witnesses have elaborated the role of the respondents herein, i.e., Waseem (A-7), Nazim (A-8), Aslam (A-2) and Abubakar (A-1). Two more witnesses were summoned for examination on 7th May, 2024.

8 Criminal Appeal No.1722 of 2022 REASONS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EARLIER BAIL ORDER

                        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