Case Note & Summary
The present appeals arise from orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granting bail to three accused, Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil, in connection with FIR No. 0359 dated 15.10.2022 registered at Gambhirpur, Aazamgarh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 336, 427 of the IPC for the murder of Khursheed Ahmad. The appellant, Aqeel Ahmad, is the informant and brother of the deceased. The High Court granted bail to Abdullah on 28.03.2023 after custody of 4 months and 19 days, solely on the ground that co-accused Neyaz Ahmad had been granted bail. Nasir was granted bail on 07.04.2023 after custody of 5 months and 11 days, relying on the bail granted to Abdullah. Muzammil was granted bail on 14.12.2023 after custody of 1 year and 2 months, on the ground that general allegations were made against all accused without specific role. The appellant challenged these orders, contending that the High Court did not consider the gravity of the offence, the period of custody, or the fact that the bail of co-accused Neyaz Ahmad had been cancelled by the Supreme Court on 28.04.2023. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not applied its mind to the facts, including the post-mortem report showing severe injuries and fractured ribs sufficient to cause death. The Court held that the bail orders were unsustainable and set them aside, cancelling the bail of all three respondents and directing them to surrender within 10 days. The Court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of these appeals and that the respondents could apply for bail afresh at an appropriate stage.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Cancellation of Bail - Parity - The High Court granted bail to the accused in a murder case on the ground that a co-accused had been granted bail, without considering the gravity of the offence, the period of custody, or the specific role of the accused. The Supreme Court held that such bail orders are unsustainable and liable to be set aside, especially when the bail of the co-accused was later cancelled by the Supreme Court. (Paras 7-8) B) Criminal Law - Bail - Application of Mind - The High Court granted bail to the accused without noticing the facts in detail, merely recording that the accused claimed innocence and was ready to abide by conditions. The Supreme Court held that bail in heinous crimes requires careful consideration of material on record, including the nature of injuries and the role of the accused. (Paras 7-8) C) Criminal Law - Bail - Cancellation - Proprio Vigore - The reasons for cancellation of bail of a co-accused by the Supreme Court apply proprio vigore to the bail orders of other accused who were granted bail on the basis of parity with that co-accused. (Para 7.1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused in a murder case on the ground of parity with a co-accused whose bail was subsequently cancelled, and without proper consideration of the facts and gravity of the offence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and cancelled the bail granted to Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil. They were directed to surrender to custody within 10 days. The Court clarified that the observations were only for the purpose of these appeals and the respondents could apply for bail afresh at an appropriate stage.
Law Points
- Bail cancellation
- parity in bail
- heinous crime
- gravity of offence
- custody period
- application of mind
