Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

In Heinous Crimes, Grant of Bail Requires Careful Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Bail Orders in Khursheed Ahmad Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court’s decision granting bail to three accused in the Khursheed Ahmad murder case. Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal presided over the bench, highlighting the gravity of the crime and the need for judicial circumspection in granting bail in such matters.

 

The Apex Court’s judgment primarily centered around the legal point of bail in cases involving heinous crimes. The court emphasized the necessity of a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances before granting bail, especially in cases of severe criminal offenses. This principle was applied to the current case, leading to the setting aside of the bail orders previously granted by the High Court.

The case involved the murder of Khursheed Ahmad, for which Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil were accused. Initially, their bail applications were rejected by the trial court, but later they were granted bail by the High Court. The appellant, an eyewitness and the brother of the deceased, vehemently opposed these bail orders. The Supreme Court was approached after the bail cancellation of a co-accused, Neyaz Ahmad, indicating a pattern of involvement in a serious crime.

Seriousness of Offence: The Court underscored the severity of the crime, noting that the post-mortem report revealed substantial physical assault leading to Ahmad’s death.

Bail Cancellation Precedent: The cancellation of co-accused Neyaz Ahmad’s bail by the Supreme Court was considered a relevant factor, suggesting a consistent judicial approach towards serious crimes.

Insufficient High Court Analysis: The Apex Court criticized the High Court for granting bail without adequately considering the case’s details and the gravity of the offenses.

Surrender Directive: The Supreme Court ordered the respondents (Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil) to surrender within 10 days, while also allowing them the liberty to file fresh bail applications in the future.

Observations Not on Merits: The Court clarified that its observations were for the purpose of deciding this case and should not be construed as a comment on the merits of the underlying controversy.

Decision  In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and directed the cancellation of bail granted to Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil. They were ordered to surrender, with the provision to apply for bail afresh at an appropriate stage.

Date of Decision: April 5, 2024

 Aqeel Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

Latest Legal News