Case Note & Summary
The present appeals arise from four orders of the Allahabad High Court granting regular bail to Waseem, Nazim, Aslam, and Abubakar, accused in a double murder case (Case Crime No.126/2020). The incident occurred on 19th May 2020 when the complainant and his family were breaking their fast; the accused persons allegedly fired indiscriminately, killing the complainant's two sons and injuring his nephew. The FIR named ten accused, including the four respondents. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and trial commenced with four eyewitnesses examined. The High Court granted bail to the respondents, relying on the fact that the accused side also suffered injuries and there was a cross-version, without adequately considering the gravity of the offence, the role attributed, or the criminal antecedents. The Supreme Court, noting that it had earlier set aside bail granted to one of the accused (Waseem) and directed fresh consideration, found that the High Court again failed to apply its mind and merely reproduced legal formulations. The Court emphasized that in serious offences like murder, the court must consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, the likelihood of witness tampering, and the criminal antecedents. The impugned orders were set aside, and the bail granted to all four respondents was cancelled. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within six months.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Grant of Bail - Duty of Court - The High Court granted bail to accused in a double murder case without recording adequate reasons and without considering the gravity of the offence, role of accused, criminal antecedents, and likelihood of witness tampering. The Supreme Court set aside the bail orders, holding that the High Court failed to apply its mind and merely reproduced legal formulations. (Paras 6-7, 10-11) B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Cross-Version - The High Court erroneously relied on the fact that the accused side also suffered injuries and there was a cross-version, without prima facie assessing who was the aggressor. The Supreme Court held that such a consideration is insufficient for grant of bail in serious offences. (Para 7) C) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Previous Bail Cancellation - The Supreme Court had earlier cancelled bail granted to one accused (Waseem) and directed fresh consideration. The High Court, while reconsidering, again granted bail without proper reasoning, leading to the present appeal. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in granting regular bail to the accused persons in a double murder case without adequately considering the seriousness of the offence, the role attributed, and the criminal antecedents, and whether the impugned bail orders suffer from non-application of mind.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders granting bail to Waseem, Nazim, Aslam, and Abubakar, and cancelled their bail. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within six months.
Law Points
- Bail considerations under Section 439 CrPC
- duty of court to record reasons
- gravity of offence
- role attributed
- criminal antecedents
- likelihood of witness tampering
- cross-version not a ground for bail without prima facie assessment
