Zarifuddin vs Abdul Qadir
- SCC(2021) 11 SCC 814
- Neutral2021 INSC 505
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a High Court has granted bail to an accused in a criminal case, the Supreme Court may set aside that order and refuse bail where: (i) the charge sheet has been filed; (ii) the prosecution has substantially progressed, with the majority of witnesses already examined; (iii) public witnesses including victims remain to be examined; and (iv) the nature of the allegations is serious. In such circumstances, the Court may impose conditions requiring the trial court to conclude proceedings within a specified period, after which the accused becomes entitled to apply afresh for bail to be considered on its own merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1216/2019
ZARIFUDDIN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ABDUL QADIR & ANR. Respondent(s)
ORDER
With the consent of the parties we have taken up the criminal
appeal for hearing.
This appeal takes exception to the order and judgment dated
11.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
whereby Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17393 of 2017
filed by the respondent no. 1 before us, namely Mohd. Abdul Qadir
has been allowed.
On the special leave petition being filed, this Court had
stayed release at respondent no.1 in terms of the impugned order.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that
nine out of nineteen witnesses including four public witnesses have
been examined by the prosecution. However, some of the public
witnesses including the victims have to be examined.
The Charge sheet in this case has been filed on 10.08.2016.
Keeping in view the facts of the present case and nature of
the allegations, we are inclined to allow the present appeal and Signature Not Verified
set aside the impugned order, granting bail to Mohd. Abdul Qadir, Digitally signed by Dr. Mukesh Nasa Date: 2021.09.20 18:07:47 IST Reason: respondent no. 1.
However, we issue directions to the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months. In case trial is not
concluded within the said time, the respondent no.1 will be
entitled to move fresh application of bail which would be
considered and decided on its own merits in accordance with the
law.
Needless to say that respondent no.1 and other accused would
cooperate with the Trial Court for expeditious and timely disposal
as directed..
The Trial Court is directed to submit report to this Court
regarding compliance of the direction given.
The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, disposed of.
……………………………………………………J. (SANJIV KHANNA)
……………………………………………………J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI) NEW DELHI 20th SEPTEMBER, 2021
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