MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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