LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

AJWAR versus WASEEM AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 17-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 575 : 2024 INSC 438
Ajwar 
v. 
Waseem and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 2639 of 2024)
17 May 2024 
[Hima Kohli* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
High Court, if justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 439(1) Cr.P.C 
for granting regular bail in favour of the accused persons.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439(1) – Special 
powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail – 
Complainant’s case that on account of previous enmity, the 
accused persons indiscriminately fired at the complainant 
and his two sons, resulting in death of his sons and serious 
injuries to his nephew – Grant of regular bail to the accused 
by the High Court – Justification:
Held: Orders granting bail not justified and suffers from grave 
infirmity – High Court 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 – High Court ignored 
that the complainant stuck to his version as recorded in the FIR 
and even after entering the witness-box, the complainant and 
three eyewitnesses specified the roles of the accused in the 
entire incident – High Court also overlooked the fact that the 
accused had previous criminal history – One of the accused 
while on bail, is alleged to have committed the double murder 
of the complainant’s son – Allegations that three of the accused 
threatened one of the key eye-witnesses in open Court, and an 
FIR was registered – High Court also overlooked the period of 
custody of the accused for such a grave offence alleged to have 
been committed by them – Furthermore, in the cross-FIR filed by 
accused persons, closure was filed by the police – Protest petition 
filed by complainant is pending arguments – Thus, the accused do 
not deserve the concession of bail – Impugned orders quashed 
and set aside. [Paras 30-35]
576
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Bail – Grant of, in cases involving serious offences – Relevant 
parameters to be considered:
Held: Courts to consider 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 released on bail; and the possibility of 
obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice. 
[Para 26]
Bail – Grant of – Cancellation, when – Considerations for 
setting aside the bail:
Held: Bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical 
manner – However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail 
always open to interference by the superior Court – If there 
are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not 
misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled 
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 – Bail can be set aside 
when any supervening circumstances may have occurred after 
granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while 
on bail, attempt on the part of the accused to delay the trial, 
attempt to tamper with the evidence, threats being extended to 
the witnesses while on bail – However, the court to examine only 
a prima facie case, and detailed reasons relating to the merits 
of the case to be avoided – Bail order should reveal the factors 
that have been considered by the court for granting relief to the 
accused. [Paras 27, 28]
Case Law Cited
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Another [2019] 14 SCR 
529 : (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ajwar v. Niyaj Ahmad and Another 
[2022] 7 SCR 356 : (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1403; Jagjeet 
Singh and Others v. Ashish Mishra [2022] 4 SCR 536 : (2022) 9 
SCC 321; Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
577
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
[2022] 4 SCR 1 : (2022) 8 SCC 559; P v. State of Madhya 
Pradesh and Another [2022] 3 SCR 823 : (2022) 15 SCR 211; 
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and 
Another (2004) 7 SCC 528; Kumer Singh v. State of Rajasthan 
and Another [2021] 6 SCR 539 : (2021) SCC OnLine SC 511; 
Yashpal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2022] 4 
S

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