Supreme Court Cancels Bail for Accused in Double Murder Case: Ajwar vs. Niyaj Ahmad (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 September 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 480
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hima Kohli, J.

Can a High Court grant bail in a serious double murder case without providing adequate reasons? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the necessity for reasoned orders when granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious criminal offenses. The Court examined a case where the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to an accused in a double murder case, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, overturned the High Court’s decision, highlighting the importance of considering the gravity of the offense, the accused’s role, and the potential for witness tampering when deciding on bail applications.

Case Background

On 19 May 2020, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the appellant, Ajwar, at Police Station Mundali, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. The FIR alleged that ten individuals, including Nazim, Abubakar, and others, attacked Ajwar and his sons due to prior enmity. The attack resulted in the death of two of Ajwar’s sons, Abdul Khaliq and Abdul Majid, who sustained fatal bullet injuries. Abdul Khaliq died on the spot, and Abdul Majid died en route to the hospital. Ajwar’s nephew was also seriously injured in the incident.

The postmortem report for Abdul Khaliq revealed a firearm injury to the head, causing cranio-cerebral damage, while Abdul Majid’s report indicated a firearm entry wound in the abdomen, leading to death from shock and hemorrhage.

Although the first respondent, Niyaj Ahmad, was not initially named in the FIR, his involvement surfaced during the investigation. In his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (CrPC), Ajwar stated that he had orally informed the scribe of the FIR, Saleem, about Niyaj Ahmad’s involvement.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 23 June 2020 under Section 173 of CrPC against eight accused, including Niyaj Ahmad, for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 302, 307, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC). The case was committed to the Sessions Court, registered as Sessions Trial No. 574 of 2020, and is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut. Charges have been framed, and the informant, PW1, has testified, implicating Niyaj Ahmad.

The first bail application of Niyaj Ahmad was dismissed on 29 July 2021. A second bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 16 December 2021, citing the seriousness of the offense and prior enmity between the parties. The High Court, in response to Ajwar’s petition under Section 482 of CrPC, directed the Sessions Court to expedite the trial on 7 May 2022. Subsequently, Niyaj Ahmad filed a bail application before the High Court, which was granted on 4 August 2022, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions. The charges against the accused were framed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC). These sections deal with rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, attempt to murder, assault, and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, respectively. Section 34 of the IPC deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The investigation and charge sheet were filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC), which outlines the procedure for police reports after investigation. The appellant’s statement was recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, which allows police to examine witnesses.

The High Court’s power to expedite trials was invoked under Section 482 of the CrPC, which allows the High Court to make orders to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that two of his sons were murdered in the incident.
• The role of the first respondent, Niyaj Ahmad, emerged during the investigation through statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.
• The appellant, as PW1, specifically mentioned the role of Niyaj Ahmad in his deposition.
• Given the gravity of the offense and Niyaj Ahmad’s role, there was no justification for granting bail.
• Despite the High Court’s direction to expedite the trial, Niyaj Ahmad repeatedly sought adjournments to delay the proceedings.

State of Uttar Pradesh’s Submissions:

• The State supported the appellant, arguing that the High Court erred in granting bail without considering the seriousness of the crime.
• The State highlighted the role of Niyaj Ahmad as mentioned in the deposition of PW1 and in previous statements.
• The recovery of five country-made pistols was also presented as a key factor.
• The postmortem reports confirmed that the deaths resulted from gunshot injuries.
• The criminal history of Niyaj Ahmad was also brought up.

First Respondent’s Submissions:

• Niyaj Ahmad contended that a cross-case was registered at the behest of his wife.
• An FIR (Case Crime No. 361 of 2020) was registered against the appellant for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 307, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, based on a Judicial Magistrate’s directions.
• The police had submitted a closure report twice, but the Magistrate rejected it and ordered further investigation.
• Niyaj Ahmad claimed to have suffered a gunshot injury during the incident, which supports the cross-case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the first respondent, Niyaj Ahmad, without adequately considering the seriousness of the offense, the evidence against him, and other relevant factors.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118* to underscore the necessity for reasoned orders in bail matters, stating that merely recording “having perused the record” is insufficient.
• The Court cited Aminuddin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2021* to show that a similar order of bail was set aside. The Court highlighted that the High Court had merely observed that bail was being granted after considering the submissions and having regard to the “larger mandate of Article 21” without considering the seriousness of the offence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The seriousness and gravity of the double murder.
• The role attributed to the first respondent in the crime.
• The failure of the High Court to provide reasoned justification for granting bail.
• The potential for witness tampering and the accused’s lack of cooperation in the trial.
• The need to balance individual liberty with the public interest in the administration of justice.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court emphasized the need for reasoned orders in bail matters, stating, “Merely recording ‘having perused the record’ and ‘on the facts and circumstances of the case’ does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order.” The Court also noted, “The duty to consider the circumstances of the case can not be obviated by setting down legal formulations.” Furthermore, the Court highlighted that, “An over-burdened docket is no justification for formulaic justice.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must provide reasoned orders when granting bail, especially in serious criminal cases.
• Courts must consider the seriousness of the crime, the accused’s role, and the potential for witness tampering.
• Formulaic justice is unacceptable, and each case must be decided on its specific facts.
• The principle of open justice requires that the reasons for granting or refusing bail be transparent.
• The balance between individual liberty and the public interest in the administration of justice must be carefully considered.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the first respondent, Niyaj Ahmad, to surrender within two weeks. The Court also clarified that any observations made in the order would not affect the merits of the trial.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must provide reasoned orders when granting bail, especially in serious criminal cases. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail orders must reflect a due application of mind to the specific facts of each case and cannot be based on formulaic reasoning. This case reaffirms the importance of considering the gravity of the offense, the role of the accused, and the potential for witness tampering when deciding on bail applications.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order that had granted bail to Niyaj Ahmad. The Supreme Court emphasized that bail orders must be reasoned and reflect a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case. This judgment serves as a reminder to High Courts to avoid formulaic approaches and to ensure that decisions on bail applications are based on a thorough analysis of the relevant factors.