Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    AQEEL AHMAD vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

    Uploaded by

    Arun Keerthi
    The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to three respondents (Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil) by the High Court. The respondents were accused of the murder of Khursheed Ahmad. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately consider the facts and circumstances of the case when granting bail. The bail was granted after short periods of custody for a serious crime. The Supreme Court directed the respondents to surrender within 10 days.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    AQEEL AHMAD vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

    Uploaded by

    Arun Keerthi
    38 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to three respondents (Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil) by the High Court. The respondents were accused of the murder of Khursheed Ahmad. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately consider the facts and circumstances of the case when granting bail. The bail was granted after short periods of custody for a serious crime. The Supreme Court directed the respondents to surrender within 10 days.

    Original Title

    AQEEL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to three respondents (Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil) by the High Court. The respondents were accused of the murder of Khursheed Ahmad. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately consider the facts and circumstances of the case when granting bail. The bail was granted after short periods of custody for a serious crime. The Supreme Court directed the respondents to surrender within 10 days.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    38 views2 pages

    AQEEL AHMAD vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

    Uploaded by

    Arun Keerthi
    The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to three respondents (Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil) by the High Court. The respondents were accused of the murder of Khursheed Ahmad. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately consider the facts and circumstances of the case when granting bail. The bail was granted after short periods of custody for a serious crime. The Supreme Court directed the respondents to surrender within 10 days.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Coram: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL

    Decided On April 5, 2024

    Final Verdict:

    Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Of 2024 (Arising Out Of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8347 OF 2023) WITH Criminal Appeal No. Of 2024 (Arising Out
    Of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8348 OF 2023) AND Criminal Appeal No. Of 2024 (Arising Ou

    AQEEL AHMAD Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

    ADVOCATES:-

    EQUIVALENT CITATIONS:-

    LAWS(SC)-2024-4-11

    REFERRED JUDGEMENTS:-

    CITED JUDGEMENTS:-

    REFERRED ACT:

    INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860S.147, S.148, S.149, S.302, S.336, S.427

    EXPERT VIEW:-

    A. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - S.147 - Punishment for rioting, S.148 - Rioting, armed with deadly weapon,
    S.149 - Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common
    object, S.302 - Punishment for murder, S.336 - Act endangering life or personal safety of others, S.427 -
    Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees - 147, 148, 149, 302, 336, 427 of IPC, registered
    on account of murder of Khursheed Ahmad.3.1 In Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8347 of
    2023, initially respondent no.2/Abdullah filed bail application before the Trial Court, which was rejected
    vide order dtd.

    B. The ground raised was that general allegations of assaulting the deceased have been made against all
    the accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to the respondent no.2/Muzammil.

    C. In view of the above, the bail granted to the respondents (Abdullah, Nasir and Muzammil) is cancelled. -
    We make it clear that nothing, as noticed above, shall be taken as observation of this Court on merits of
    the controversy.
    JUDGEMENT:-

    (1.) Leave granted.


    (2.) Challenge in the present appeals is to the orders(dtd. 28/3/2023 passed in Crl. M.B.A. No.13988 of 2023, dtd. 7/4/2023 passed in
    Crl. M.B.A. No.14388 of 2023 and dtd. 14/12/2023 passed in Crl. M.B.A. No.53539 of 2023, respectively) passed by the High
    Court(High Court of Judicature at Allahabad). The Respondent No.2 in each of the appeals, namely, Abdullah, Nasir and Muzammil
    were granted bail by the High Court. The challenge has been made by the informant.
    (3.) The private Respondents herein are accused in FIR No. 0359 dtd. 15/10/2022 registered at Gambhirpur, Aazamgarh under Ss. 147,
    148, 149, 302, 336, 427 of IPC, registered on account of murder of Khursheed Ahmad.
    3.1 In Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8347 of 2023, initially respondent no.2/Abdullah filed bail application before the Trial
    Court, which was rejected vide order dtd. 16/2/2023. Thereafter, he moved the bail application before the High Court, which was
    allowed vide impugned order dtd. 28/3/2023. The ground raised was that one of the co-accused/Neyaz Ahmad had been enlarged on
    bail by the High Court vide order dtd. 22/2/2023(Passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5775 of 2023).
    3.2 In Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 8348 of 2023, the respondent no.2/Nasir filed bail application before the High
    Court, which was allowed vide impugned order dtd. 7/4/2023. The ground raised was that one of the co-accused/Abdullah has been
    enlarged on bail by the High Court vide order dtd. 28/3/2023(Subject to challenge in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8347
    of 2023).
    3.3 In the Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Diary No. 53136 of 2023, the respondent no.2/Muzammil filed bail application
    before the High Court, which was allowed vide impugned order dtd. 14/12/2023. The ground raised was that general allegations of
    assaulting the deceased have been made against all the accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to the respondent
    no.2/Muzammil.
    (4.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the bail was granted to the respondent-Abdullah he had merely undergone
    imprisonment for 4 months and 19 days; the respondent-Nasir had undergone imprisonment for 5 months and 11 days; and
    respondentMuzammil had undergone imprisonment for 1 year and 2 months. They are accused of a serious offence of the murder of
    Khursheed Ahmad. The High Court did not even refer to the arguments of the respondent no.1/State. Bail was granted to the
    respondent/Abdullah merely referring to the fact that another accused/Neyaz Ahmad had been granted bail by the High Court. Bail was
    granted to the respondent/Nasir referring to the order passed in the case of Abdullah. In the case of the respondent/Muzammil, the
    facts were not considered in detail. It was only recorded that he claimed himself to be innocent and ready to abide by any conditions.
    Despite objection by the State counsel, bail was granted to the said respondents. There is clear involvement of the said respondents in
    the crime to which the appellant was an eyewitness.
    (5.) The appellant, who is informant in the case registered on account of death of his elder brother was threatened of dire
    consequences by the accused-Abdullah for which he had filed a complaint dtd. 16/1/2023 with the Chief Minister of the State. It was
    also argued that the bail granted to the co-accused/Neyaz Ahmad was cancelled by this Court vide order dtd. 28/4/2023(Passed in
    Criminal Appeal No.1305 of 2023).
    (6.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents (Abdullah, Nasir and Muzammil) submitted that it is a case in which the
    appellant had falsely implicated the said respondents. Their further incarceration during the pendency of the matter will amount to
    injustice to them. There is no error in the orders passed by the High Court and the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
    (7.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion the orders passed by the High Court deserve to be set aside. 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 respondent/Abdullah was granted bail by the High Court after custody of 4 months and 19 days merely noticing
    that another accused/Neyaz Ahmad had been granted bail by the High Court; respondent/Nasir was granted bail by the High Court
    after custody of 5 months and 11 days noticing the fact that another accused/Abdullah had been granted bail; and
    respondent/Muzammil was granted bail after custody of 1 year and 2 months without considering the relevant material on record. The
    respondents (Abdullah, Nasir and Muzammil) were specifically named in the FIR. The bail to the said respondents was granted without
    even noticing the facts in detail. The post-mortem report suggests that the deceased was severely assaulted. His ribs were fractured
    and the injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient to cause his death.
    7.1. The reasons for cancellation of the bail, granted by the High Court to the co-accused Neyaz Ahmad, by this Court as per order dtd.
    28/4/2023 also assume relevance in the context of the challenge made against the impugned orders. Proprio vigore such reasons will
    apply in the case of the orders impugned in the captioned appeals as well.
    (8.) Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, in our opinion, the impugned orders cannot be legally sustained, the same are accordingly
    set aside. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed.
    (9.) In view of the above, the bail granted to the respondents (Abdullah, Nasir and Muzammil) is cancelled. They are directed to
    surrender to custody before the concerned Trial Court within 10 days from today.
    (10.) We make it clear that nothing, as noticed above, shall be taken as observation of this Court on merits of the controversy. The
    arguments have been noticed only for the purpose of decision of the case in hand. The respondents (Abdullah, Nasir and Muzammil)
    shall be at liberty to move fresh application for bail at any appropriate stage, which shall be considered on its own merits.

    You might also like