In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the same court that granted bail to an accused can revoke it if serious charges are brought against him, even though the accused has not abused the bail.

“If the accused is facing serious charges, even if he has not abused the bail granted to him, such an order may be revoked by the same court that granted the bail. Bail may also be revoked by a high court if it is found that the courts below have ignored relevant material available on the record or failed to consider the seriousness of the offense or the impact it has had on society in making such an order.”bench contains Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah he said.

Judgment authored by Referee Hima Kohli noted that when deciding whether to grant bail to an accused accused of committing a serious crime, the court must take into account relevant factors such as “the nature of the charges brought against the accused, the manner in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, the seriousness of the offence, the role assigned to the accused, the criminal history of the accused, the likelihood of witness tampering and repetition of the offence, if the accused is released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable if bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the court and the general advisability of releasing the accused on bail.”

The informant/appellant contended that the High Court had granted bail to the accused in the murder case without considering the material evidence produced by the prosecution implicating the accused in the crime.

“The High Court ignored the fact that the appellant-appellant stuck to his version recorded in the FIR and that even after entering the witness box, the appellant-appellant and the three eyewitnesses had identified the roles of the accused/respondent in the entire incident. The High Court also overlooked the fact that the respondents have detailed information about their criminal antecedents, details of which were furnished by the UP State Counsel.”– the court noted.

“Furthermore, and most importantly, the High Court disregarded the period of imprisonment of the defendants charged with the serious offense with which they are charged. As per the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the State of UP, before being granted bail, accused-Waseem was in custody for a period of about two years and four months, accused-Nazim for a period of two years and eight months, accused-Aslam for a period of about two years and nine months months, and the accused Abubakar – for a period of two years and ten months. In other words, all accused-defendants had been in custody for less than three years for the serious crime of double murder with which they were charged.”– added the court.

Considering all the factors together, the Court found that the respondents/accused were undeserving of bail.

The appeal was allowed.

Counsels for the applicant Mr. Shreeyash U Lalit, Adv. Mr. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Asim Khan, Adv. Mr. Shoaib Ahmad Khan, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Garausa, Adv. Mr. Krishnagopal Abhay, Adv. Mr. Iduddin, Adv. Mr. Jazib Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Ms. Bushra Ali, Adv.

Counsel for the respondent(s) Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Gufran Ali, Adv. Ms. Chitra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sadik Saleem, Adv. Ms. Preeti Gupta, AOR Mr. K. Parameshwar, AAG Mr. Rajat Singh, AOR Mr. Alok Kr. Pandey, Adv. Ms. Shweta Yadav, Adv. Ms. Vartika Singh, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Chandra, Adv.

Case title: AJWAR vs. WASEEM AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Click here to read/download the judgment