Court that granted bail can cancel the bail of an accused if there are serious allegations against him: Supreme Court
While hearing the Ajwar vs. Waseem and Another case, the Supreme Court (SC) of India observed that if there are serious allegations against the accused then the Court that granted him bail can cancel the bail even though the accused has not misused the bail. The matter was heard by a bench constituting Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah. The SC bench said “If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be canceled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a Superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order.”
The SC observed, “While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.”
During the proceedings, the appellant contended that the accused in the murder case of his two sons and severely injured nephew was granted bail by the High Court without considering any material evidence placed on record. In this context, the top court bench observed “The High Court has completely lost sight of the principles that conventionally govern a Court’s discretion at the time of deciding whether bail ought to be granted or not. The High Court has ignored the fact that the appellant-complainant has stuck to his version as recorded in the FIR and that even after entering the witness-box, the appellant-complainant and three eyewitnesses have specified the roles of the accused- respondents in the entire incident. The High Court has also overlooked the fact that the respondents have previous criminal history details whereof have been furnished by the Counsel for the State of UP.”
The SC bench added, “Furthermore and most importantly, the High Court has overlooked the period of custody of the respondents-accused for such a grave offence alleged to have been committed by them. As per the submission made by learned counsel for the State of UP, before being released on bail, the accused-Waseem had undergone custody for a period of about two years four months, the accused-Nazim for a period of two years eight months, the accused-Aslam for a period of about two years nine months and the accused Abubakar, for a period of two years ten months. In other words, all the accused-respondents have remained in custody for less than three years for such a serious offence of a double murder for which they have been charged.” After hearing the contentions, the bench examined all the factors collectively and held that the same leaves no manner of doubt that the respondents do not deserve the concession of bail. It further directed the respondents to surrender within two weeks from May 17, 2024 (the date of passing the order).
