Aqeel Ahmad vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
- Neutral2024 INSC 268
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a co-accused has been granted bail on grounds that do not engage the substantive criteria for bail (such as merely noting that another co-accused received bail, or without detailed consideration of relevant material), the bail granted to subsequent co-accused on that basis is vulnerable to cancellation, as it lacks independent justification in the bail application criteria and does not constitute proper grounds for enlargement. Where bail has been granted to an accused charged with a heinous offence after relatively short periods of custody (four to five months) without detailed consideration of the facts on record, the seriousness of the offence, the nature and extent of injuries inflicted, and the specific implication of the accused in the FIR, such bail orders may be set aside on the ground that they were granted without proper application of the legal principles governing bail. The fact that a co-accused's bail was subsequently cancelled by this Court constitutes relevant context for reconsidering the propriety of bail orders granted to other co-accused on similar or related grounds, and the reasoning for such cancellation applies with equal force to the other bail orders granted in the same case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2024 INSC 268 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8347 OF 2023)
AQEEL AHMAD … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER … Respondent(s)
WITH Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8348 OF 2023) AND Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. ………..OF 2024 @ D.No.53136 of 2023))
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Leave granted.
2. Challenge in the present appeals is to the orders1 passed by
the High Court2. The Respondent No.2 in each of the appeals, namely,
Signature Not Verified 1 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 Digitally signed by VARSHA MENDIRATTA 2023 & dated 14.12.2023 passed in Crl. M.B.A. No.53539 of 2023, respectively Date: 2024.04.05 13:57:30 IST Reason: 2 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Page 1 of 7 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 22.02.20233.
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
3 Passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5775 of 2023
Page 2 of 7 raised was that one of the co-accused/Abdullah has been enlarged on bail
by the High Court vide order dated 28.03.20234.
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
4 Subject to challenge in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8347 of 2023
Page 3 of 7 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 28.04.20235.
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
5 Passed in Criminal Appeal No.1305 of 2023
Page 4 of 7 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 for the parties, in our
opinion the orders passed by the High Court deserve to be set aside. The
respondents (Abdullah, Nasir and Muzammil) were allegedly involved in
the heinous crime of the murder of Khursheed Ahmad on a very paltry
issue. The respondent/Abdullah was granted bail by the High Court after
custody of 4 months and 19 days merely noticing that another
accused/Neyaz Ahmad had been granted bail by the High Court;
respondent/Nasir was granted bail by the High Court after custody of 5
months and 11 days noticing the fact that another accused/Abdullah had
been granted bail; and respondent/Muzammil was granted bail after
custody of 1 year and 2 months without considering the relevant material
on record. The respondents (Abdullah, Nasir and Muzammil) were
specifically named in the FIR. The bail to the said respondents was
granted without even noticing the facts in detail. The post-mortem report
suggests that the deceased was severely assaulted. His ribs were
Page 5 of 7 fractured and the injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient to cause
his death.
7.1. The reasons for cancellation of the bail, granted by the High
Court to the co-accused Neyaz Ahmad, by this Court as per order dated
28.04.2023 also assume relevance in the context of the challenge made
against the impugned orders. Proprio vigore such reasons will apply in
the case of the orders impugned in the captioned appeals as well.
8. Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, in our opinion, the
impugned orders cannot be legally sustained, the same are accordingly
set aside. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed.
9. In view of the above, the bail granted to the respondents
(Abdullah, Nasir and Muzammil) is cancelled. They are directed to
surrender to custody before the concerned Trial Court within 10 days
from today.
10. We make it clear that nothing, as noticed above, shall be taken
as observation of this Court on merits of the controversy. The arguments
have been noticed only for the purpose of decision of the case in hand.
The respondents (Abdullah, Nasir and Muzammil) shall be at liberty to
Page 6 of 7 move fresh application for bail at any appropriate stage, which shall be
considered on its own merits.
……………….……………..J. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
……………….……………..J. (RAJESH BINDAL) New Delhi April 05, 2024.
Page 7 of 7
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free