Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Double Murder Case: Ajwar vs. Waseem and Others (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 May 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 438

Judges: Hima Kohli, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Can a High Court grant bail to accused persons in a double murder case, especially when key evidence and criminal history are overlooked? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, setting aside the bail orders granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The case revolves around a brutal incident where two sons of the complainant were murdered. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, found that the High Court had not appropriately considered the gravity of the crime, the evidence against the accused, and their criminal antecedents. This judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and reasoned approach when granting bail in serious criminal cases.

Case Background

On May 19, 2020, at approximately 7:30 PM, the appellant-complainant, along with his two sons, Abdul Khaliq and Abdul Majid, and others, were at their residence preparing to break their fast (Roza Iftar). At this time, ten accused individuals, including Waseem, Nazim, Aslam, and Abubakar, arrived and opened fire indiscriminately. The appellant’s two sons died at the scene, and his nephew, Asjad, was severely injured. The complainant stated that there was prior animosity between the parties, which led to the attack.

Initially, Niyaz Ahmed, the father of Waseem, was not named in the First Information Report (FIR). However, his involvement was discovered during the police investigation, and he was added as a co-accused. The police filed a chargesheet on June 23, 2020, against eight accused, including Abubakar, Niyaz Ahmad, Aslam, and Nazim. Three other individuals were found not to be involved and were not charged.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

After the chargesheet was filed, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and registered as Sessions Trial No. 574 of 2020. The trial is ongoing at the Additional Sessions Judge, Court 15, Meerut. Charges have been framed, and the prosecution has listed twenty witnesses, including seven eyewitnesses. Four eyewitnesses have been examined, including the appellant-complainant (PW-1) and three other eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4). These witnesses have detailed the roles of the respondents Waseem (A-7), Nazim (A-8), Aslam (A-2), and Abubakar (A-1) in the crime.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the application of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which pertains to the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant bail. The Supreme Court also considered the implications of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly.

Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. states:

“(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary.”

Section 149 of the IPC states:

“If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that this was a case of a double murder of his two young sons due to prior enmity.
• The accused were the aggressors who forcibly entered the appellant’s house and fired indiscriminately.
• The respondents have criminal antecedents and have been deliberately delaying the trial.
• Eyewitnesses have clearly identified the roles of the accused in the crime.
• The High Court overlooked the seriousness of the crime and the evidence against the accused.
• The accused have intimidated witnesses after being released on bail.
• The appellant cited several cases to support his argument that individual facts of the case must be considered while granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
• The appellant argued that the individual role of each accused is not required to be considered when they were allegedly a part of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the delay in completing the trial was not their fault.
• They claimed that the adjournments were not on their account.
• They stated that Waseem did not misuse his liberty when he was previously granted bail.
• They refuted the allegation that they were involved in several other cases.
• They argued that the appellant-complainant himself has a criminal history.
• They contended that bail, once granted, should not be cancelled unless there are supervening circumstances.
• They highlighted loopholes in the prosecution’s version, such as the time difference in reporting the crime, and the alleged manipulation of Medico Legal Reports.
• They argued that the prime eyewitnesses are related to the deceased and that there is a possibility of over-implication of the accused persons.
• They claimed that the dispute was due to political rivalry.
• They assured the court that they would not abscond and would cooperate with the trial.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was in highlighting the conduct of the accused after being released on bail, and the fact that the High Court did not consider the gravity of the offense and the criminal history of the accused.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in favor of the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Powers of High Court or Sessions Court to grant bail.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Offence committed by members of unlawful assembly.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court relied on Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Another [(2020) 2 SCC 118]* and other similar cases to emphasize that the individual facts of each case must be considered while granting bail.
• The Court cited Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another [(2004) 7 SCC 528]* and other similar cases to highlight the factors to be considered while granting bail.
• The Court used Kumer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Another [2021 SCC OnLine SC 511]* and similar cases to state that the individual role of each accused is not required to be considered when they were allegedly a part of an unlawful assembly.
• The Court used Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Another [(2004) 7 SCC 525]* and other similar cases to underscore the relevant parameters for granting bail.
• The Court used Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349]* to emphasize that the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial.
• The Court used Puran v. Ram Bilas and Another [(2001) 6 SCC 338]* and Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat and Another [(2008) 13 SCC 584]* to emphasize that if the order is illegal or perverse, the appellate court can set aside the bail.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overlooked critical factors, including the gravity of the offense, the evidence against the accused, their criminal history, and their attempts to intimidate witnesses. The High Court’s reasoning was found to be flawed, and its orders were set aside.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Gravity of the Offense: The fact that the case involved a double murder weighed heavily on the Court’s mind. The Court emphasized that the High Court had not given due consideration to the seriousness of the crime.
• Evidence Against the Accused: The Court noted that the complainant and eyewitnesses had consistently identified the roles of the accused in the crime. The High Court had overlooked this crucial evidence.
• Criminal Antecedents: The Court considered the criminal history of the accused, which was not adequately addressed by the High Court.
• Conduct of the Accused: The fact that the accused had intimidated a key witness while on bail was a significant factor in the Court’s decision. This demonstrated a lack of respect for the legal process and a potential threat to the fairness of the trial.
• Delaying Tactics: The Court also took note of the respondents’ attempts to delay the trial, which further undermined their claim for bail.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by both factual aspects (such as the evidence and conduct of the accused) and legal considerations (such as the interpretation of Section 439 Cr.P.C. and relevant precedents). However, the factual aspects weighed more heavily in the Court’s reasoning.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C.

Key Takeaways

• Bail in Serious Offenses: High Courts must exercise caution while granting bail in serious offenses like murder. A thorough assessment of the gravity of the crime, the evidence against the accused, and their criminal history is essential.
• Conduct of Accused: The conduct of the accused while on bail is a critical factor. Any attempt to intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence can lead to the cancellation of bail.
• Reasoned Orders: Bail orders must be reasoned and should reflect a due application of mind. Overlooking key facts or relying on irrelevant factors can lead to interference by superior courts.
• Parity as a Ground: Granting bail solely on the grounds of parity with other accused can be problematic if the individual circumstances of each accused are not considered.
• Custody Period: The period of custody of the accused is a relevant factor, but it should not be the sole basis for granting bail, especially in serious offenses.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment reinforces the importance of a robust and reasoned approach to granting bail in serious criminal cases. It serves as a reminder for lower courts to consider all relevant factors and not to grant bail mechanically. The judgment will likely be cited in future cases where bail is sought in serious offenses, particularly those involving violence and witness intimidation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to surrender within two weeks from the date of the order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that while granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the courts must consider the gravity of the offense, the evidence against the accused, their criminal history, and their conduct while on bail. The courts must not grant bail mechanically or based on parity without considering the individual circumstances of each accused. This judgment reinforces the principle that bail is not a matter of right, especially in serious offenses, and it can be cancelled if the accused misuses the liberty granted or if the initial order is flawed.

There is no change in the previous positions of law but this judgment clarifies the application of the existing law by emphasizing the factors that must be considered while granting bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajwar vs. Waseem and Others (2024) is a significant ruling that emphasizes the need for a thorough and reasoned approach when granting bail in serious criminal cases. The Court set aside the bail orders granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, citing that the High Court had overlooked critical factors such as the gravity of the offense, the evidence against the accused, their criminal history, and their attempts to intimidate witnesses. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder for lower courts to exercise caution and to consider all relevant factors when deciding on bail applications, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like murder.

Category

Parent category: Criminal Law

• Child category: Bail
• Child category: Murder
• Child category: Section 439, Cr.P.C.
• Child category: Section 149, IPC

Parent category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• Child category: Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Parent category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Child category: Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the case of Ajwar vs. Waseem and Others (2024)?

A: The main issue is whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused in a double murder case, given the seriousness of the offense and the evidence against them.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court set aside the bail orders granted by the High Court, finding that the High Court had overlooked critical factors such as the gravity of the offense, the evidence against the accused, their criminal history, and their attempts to intimidate witnesses.

Q: What are the key factors that courts should consider while granting bail in serious criminal cases?

A: Courts should consider the gravity of the offense, the evidence against the accused, their criminal history, their conduct while on bail, and any attempts to intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Q: What is Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)?

A: Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant bail to a person accused of an offense.

Q: What is Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

A: Section 149 of the IPC deals with offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly, making each member guilty of the offense committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly.

Q: What is the ratio decidendi of this case?

A: The ratio decidendi of this case is that while granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the courts must consider the gravity of the offense, the evidence against the accused, their criminal history, and their conduct while on bail. The courts must not grant bail mechanically or based on parity without considering the individual circumstances of each accused.