In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the bail granted to four individuals accused in a double murder case, highlighting that the same court which initially grants bail has the authority to revoke it if serious allegations are involved, even if the bail conditions have not been violated. This case, Ajwar vs. Waseem and Others, stems from a horrific incident on May 19, 2020, in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, where the appellant's two sons were killed and his nephew severely injured.
Incident Overview
On the evening of May 19, 2020, as the appellant and his family were preparing to break their fast, the accused—Waseem, Nazim, Aslam, and Abubakar—allegedly attacked, opening fire and killing the appellant's two sons while injuring his nephew. This brutal act was reportedly driven by longstanding enmity between the families.
Legal Issues Involved
The Supreme Court's decision centered on several key legal issues:
1. *Granting and Cancellation of Bail*: The main legal question was under what conditions a court can cancel bail that it has previously granted. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had properly exercised its discretion in releasing the accused on bail.
2. *Seriousness and Gravity of the Offense*: The Court evaluated the severity of the allegations and the nature of the crime committed.
3. *Conduct of the Accused*: The Court considered the behavior of the accused while out on bail, particularly any attempts to delay the trial or intimidate witnesses.
Court's Decision
Justice Hima Kohli, delivering the judgment, nullified the bail granted by the High Court, pointing out that the High Court had not sufficiently considered the severity of the crime and its potential ramifications on the trial and society.
Key Observations
1. *Serious Allegations and Bail Cancellation*: The Supreme Court underscored that an unjustified or irrational bail order could be contested and overturned by a superior court. The presence of serious allegations against the accused justifies the revocation of bail, even if the accused have not misused their freedom.
2. *Role of the Accused*: The Court emphasized that the appellant and eyewitnesses had consistently detailed the involvement of the accused in the incident. These crucial details were overlooked by the High Court when it granted bail.
3. *Criminal Antecedents*: Highlighting the criminal history of the accused, the Court criticized the High Court for disregarding their past criminal records.
4. *Intimidation of Witnesses*: The Court gave significant weight to allegations that the accused had threatened a key eyewitness, Abdullah (PW-2), during court proceedings, which further warranted the cancellation of bail.
This ruling by the Supreme Court not only reaffirms the gravity of the judicial process in handling serious criminal offenses but also ensures that justice is upheld by considering the broader impact on society and the integrity of the judicial system.
To get free legal advice: https://www.advotalks.com/
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@advotalkslegal
