AJWAR versus NIYAJ AHMAD & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 30-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
AJWAR
v.
NIYAJ AHMAD & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1722 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 161, 482, 173 – Bail
– When not granted – FIR was registered against the ten accused
for offence punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 and 504
r/w.  s.34 of the IPC – The first respondent was not named in the FIR,
his role is alleged to have emerged during the course of the
investigation – After the investigation was completed, charge-sheet
was filed against the accused, including the first respondent – During
the course of the deposition, PW 1 has adverted to the role of the
first respondent – Bail application filed by the first respondent was
dismissed by the Session Court – The first respondent moved the
High Court for grant of bail – Single Judge of the High Court
granted bail – On appeal, held: The High Court has failed to notice
the facts bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the offence –
Once the role of the first respondent has emerged during the course
of the investigation, followed by the filing of a charge-sheet, no
case for the grant of bail was made out  –  That apart, Additional
Sessions Judge in his order adverted to the fact that the first
respondent upon being granted bail has consistently remained absent
from the trial – Hence, the order passed by the High Court is hereby
set aside – First respondent directed to surrender.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Bail – Grant of – Points
to be considered while granting bail – The Court is duty bound to
consider: (i) The seriousness and gravity of the crime; (ii) The role
attributed to the accused; (iii) The likelihood of the witnesses being
tampered with if bail is granted; (iv) The likelihood of the accused
not being available for trial if bail 6 is granted; and (v) The criminal
antecedents of the accused.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Bail – Grant of –
Whether to write an elaborate or detailed judgment or not – Held:
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 356
356
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
357
At the stage of deciding as to whether or not to grant bail, the Court
is not expected to write an elaborate or detailed judgment – However,
the reasons in support of an order granting or refusing bail must
emerge from the record and must show a due application of mind by
the Judge to the facts of the case.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The manner in which the Single Judge of the
High Court has disposed of the application for bail is unsatisfactory.
In determining as to whether bail should be granted in a matter
involving a serious criminal offence, the Court is duty bound to
consider: (i) The seriousness and gravity of the crime; (ii) The
role attributed to the accused; (iii) The likelihood of the witnesses
being tampered with if bail is granted; (iv) The likelihood of the
accused not being available for trial if bail is granted; and (v) The
criminal antecedents of the accused. In successive orders, the
Single Judge of the High Court granted bail containing the same
sentence, purportedly of reasons. Merely recording that the Court
has had regard to the nature of the accusation, the severity of the
punishment in the case of conviction, the nature of supporting
evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the
charge, reformative theory of punishment and the larger mandate
of Article 21 is not a satisfactory method for the simple reason
that the facts of the case have to be considered. Moreover, not
all the circumstances referred to above will weigh in the same
direction. The duty to consider the circumstances of the case
cannot be obviated by setting down legal formulations. [Paras 10
& 11][361-E-H; 362-A-C]
2. At the stage of deciding as to whether or not to grant
bail, the Court is not expected to write an elaborate or detailed
judgment. However, the reasons in support of an order granting
or refusing bail must emerge from the record and must show a
due application of mind by the Judge to the facts of the case. An
over-burdened docket is no justification for formulaic justice. This
Court, therefore, disapprove of the manner in which the Single
Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has been
dealing with applications for bail. [Paras 13][363-D]
AJWAR v. NIYAJ AHMAD & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
3. The High Court has failed to notice the facts bearing on
the seriousness and gravity of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.