Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case: Aqeel Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: April 05, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 268

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a High Court grant bail to an accused in a heinous crime like murder simply because a co-accused has been granted bail? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent case, highlighting the importance of individual assessment of each accused’s role and the seriousness of the charges. This case revolves around the cancellation of bail granted by the High Court to three accused in a murder case, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of facts and circumstances before granting bail, especially in grave offenses.

The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, delivered the judgment. Justice Rajesh Bindal authored the opinion.

Case Background

This case involves a criminal appeal against the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had granted bail to three accused individuals, namely Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil, in a murder case. The case originated from an FIR (First Information Report) registered at Gambhirpur, Aazamgarh, concerning the murder of Khursheed Ahmad. The informant, Aqeel Ahmad, who is the appellant in this case, is the brother of the deceased.

The FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 336, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused, Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil, were alleged to be involved in the murder of Khursheed Ahmad. The High Court granted bail to these accused based on the grounds of parity with other co-accused who had been previously granted bail, and in one case, on the ground of no specific role being assigned to the accused.

The informant, Aqeel Ahmad, challenged these orders of the High Court before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had not considered the gravity of the offense and the specific roles of the accused in the crime. He also pointed out that he had been threatened by one of the accused, Abdullah.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The course of proceedings in this case involves multiple stages. Initially, the accused Abdullah’s bail application was rejected by the Trial Court. Subsequently, Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil each filed bail applications before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court granted bail to Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil based on parity with other co-accused who had been previously granted bail. The High Court granted bail to Abdullah merely on the ground that a co-accused, Neyaz Ahmad, had been granted bail, and to Nasir on the ground that Abdullah had been granted bail. In the case of Muzammil, the High Court noted that general allegations were made against all the accused and no specific role was assigned to Muzammil.

The informant, Aqeel Ahmad, then challenged these orders before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had not considered the gravity of the offense and the specific roles of the accused in the crime. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not even refer to the arguments of the State.

Legal Framework

The case involves the application of several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically:

• Section 147, IPC: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.
• Section 149, IPC: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
• Section 336, IPC: Act endangering life or personal safety of others.
• Section 427, IPC: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.

These sections deal with offenses related to rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, endangering life, and mischief. The legal framework requires that the court consider the gravity of the offense, the role of the accused, and the evidence against them before granting bail.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court had granted bail to the accused without considering the gravity of the offense and the specific roles of each accused in the murder of Khursheed Ahmad.
• The appellant contended that the High Court had not referred to the arguments of the State while granting bail.
• It was submitted that the High Court granted bail to Abdullah merely on the ground that another co-accused, Neyaz Ahmad, had been granted bail. Similarly, Nasir was granted bail on the ground that Abdullah had been granted bail.
• The appellant highlighted that the accused were specifically named in the FIR and were involved in the heinous crime of murder.
• The appellant pointed out that the post-mortem report indicated that the deceased was severely assaulted, with fractured ribs, and the injuries were sufficient to cause death.
• The appellant also mentioned that he, being the informant and brother of the deceased, had been threatened by the accused Abdullah.
• The appellant further submitted that the bail granted to co-accused Neyaz Ahmad was cancelled by the Supreme Court itself, which should be relevant in this case.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that they had been falsely implicated in the case by the appellant.
• They contended that their further incarceration during the pendency of the matter would amount to injustice.
• The respondents submitted that there was no error in the orders passed by the High Court and the appeals should be dismissed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused in a murder case based on parity with co-accused, without considering the specific roles and gravity of the charges.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court referred to its own order dated 28.04.2023, where it had cancelled the bail of co-accused Neyaz Ahmad. The Court noted that the reasons for cancellation of bail in that case were relevant to the present case as well.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court considered its own order in Criminal Appeal No.1305 of 2023* and held that the reasons for cancellation of bail in that case were applicable to the present case. The Court also considered the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in light of the facts of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The gravity of the offense: The Court emphasized that the accused were involved in a heinous crime of murder.
• The specific roles of the accused: The Court noted that the High Court did not consider the specific roles of each accused in the crime.
• The evidence against the accused: The Court highlighted that the accused were specifically named in the FIR and the post-mortem report showed severe assault.
• The fact that bail was granted solely on the basis of parity: The Court held that granting bail solely on the basis of parity was not justified.
• The cancellation of bail of a co-accused by the Supreme Court: The Court considered its own order cancelling the bail of co-accused Neyaz Ahmad.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the nature of the crime, the specific roles of the accused, and the evidence against them, than by purely legal considerations. This indicates that the Court focused more on the specifics of the case rather than just the legal principles.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the arguments of both the appellant and the respondents. However, the Court found that the High Court had erred in granting bail without considering the gravity of the offense and the specific roles of the accused. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be granted solely on the basis of parity with other co-accused. The Court also noted that the High Court did not consider the post-mortem report and the specific allegations against each accused. The Court held that the reasons for cancellation of bail of a co-accused were also relevant in the present case.

The Supreme Court stated, “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 Court further noted, “The bail to the said respondents was granted without even noticing the facts in detail.”

The Court concluded, “Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, in our opinion, the impugned orders cannot be legally sustained, the same are accordingly set aside.”

There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Bail cannot be granted solely on the basis of parity with co-accused.
• Courts must consider the gravity of the offense and the specific roles of each accused before granting bail.
• The facts of the case, including the post-mortem report and specific allegations, must be considered in detail.
• The cancellation of bail of a co-accused by a higher court can be a relevant factor in considering bail of other accused.

This judgment emphasizes the need for a thorough and individualized assessment of each accused’s role and the circumstances of the case before granting bail, especially in grave offenses like murder. This decision will likely influence future bail decisions, ensuring that courts do not grant bail in serious offenses merely on the basis of parity.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail granted to the respondents (Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil) was cancelled and that they must surrender to custody before the concerned Trial Court within 10 days from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that bail cannot be granted solely on the basis of parity with co-accused. The Court emphasized the need to consider the gravity of the offense, the specific role of each accused, and the evidence against them before granting bail. The Supreme Court has reiterated its position that parity alone cannot be the sole ground for granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder. This decision reinforces the principle that each case must be decided on its own merits, considering the specific facts and circumstances.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in this case, set aside the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had granted bail to the accused, Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil, in a murder case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in granting bail solely based on parity with co-accused, without considering the gravity of the offense, the specific roles of the accused, and the evidence against them. The Court emphasized that each case must be decided on its own merits and that bail cannot be granted simply because a co-accused has been granted bail. The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused and directed them to surrender to custody.