The Supreme Court granted leave to hear appeals against four orders of the Allahabad High Court, which granted bail to Waseem, Nazim, Aslam, and Abubakar in a serious criminal case involving double murder and grievous injury. The incident occurred on 19th May 2020, and the trial is ongoing. The bail was initially granted based on various considerations, including the cross-version of the incident and the difficulty in ascertaining the aggressor. However, the appellant-complainant argued that the High Court overlooked the gravity of the crime, the roles of the accused, and incidents of witness intimidation. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s orders unjustified and ordered the respondents to surrender within two weeks.

1. Leave Granted:

The Supreme Court has granted leave for appeals against orders passed by Single Judges of the Allahabad High Court, which granted bail to Waseem (Accused No. 7), Nazim (Accused No. 8), Aslam (Accused No. 2), and Abubakar (Accused No. 1) in Case Crime No. 126 of 2020 registered at Police Station Mundali, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, for offences including murder and grievous injury.

2. Brief Facts:

On 19th May 2020, the appellant-complainant, his two sons, and others were attacked by the accused while breaking their fast. Both sons died, and the nephew was seriously injured. There was previous enmity between the parties. The chargesheet was filed against eight accused, and the trial commenced with several eyewitnesses examined.

3. Proceedings After Filing of Chargesheet:

The case was committed to the Sessions Court and registered as Sessions Trial No.574 of 2020. The trial is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court 15, Meerut. Key eyewitnesses have testified against the respondents, with more witnesses scheduled for examination.

4. Reasons for Setting Aside the Earlier Bail Order Granted to Waseem:

Waseem was initially granted bail based on the bail granted to his father, which was later set aside. The High Court’s reasons included the cross-version of the incident and the difficulty in determining the aggressor. The Supreme Court found this reasoning insufficient and directed reconsideration.

5. Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant-Complainant:

The appellant’s counsel argued the seriousness of the crime, the specific roles of the respondents, their criminal antecedents, and attempts to delay the trial. The High Court had overlooked these factors and incidents of witness intimidation.

ARGUMENTS

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Appellants:

• Clean Antecedents of Respondents: The respondents do not have clean antecedents, as evidenced by the State's counter affidavit, which the High Court overlooked.

• Importance of Individual Facts in Bail Applications: The appellants' counsel emphasized that individual case facts are crucial when considering bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Accused-Respondents:

• Opposition to Bail Cancellation: The respondents' counsel argued that any trial delays were not due to the respondents and that they had not misused their liberty.

• Criminal History of Appellant-Complainant: The respondents highlighted the criminal history of the appellant-complainant and his deceased sons, suggesting a motive for false accusations.

• No Supervening Circumstances for Bail Cancellation: The respondents' counsel argued there were no new circumstances warranting bail cancellation.

• Merits of the Case and Previous Enmity: The respondents' counsel pointed out previous enmity and inconsistencies in the prosecution's version of events.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh:

• Seriousness of Offense: The State supported the appellant-complainant, stating the High Court did not consider the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood of the accused influencing the trial.

Question Involved:

• Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail under Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C.

First Round of Litigation:

• Previous Appeal Against Bail: The appellant-complainant previously appealed against the High Court's order granting bail to Niyaz Ahmad, which was set aside by the Supreme Court.

Second Round of Litigation:

• Appeal Against Bail of Waseem: The appellant-complainant also appealed against the bail granted to Waseem, which was similarly set aside by the Supreme Court.

Present Round of Litigation:

• Current Appeals Against Bail: The current appeals challenge the bail granted to Waseem, Nazim, Aslam, and Abubakar, with the latter three being granted bail on grounds of parity.

Post Mortem Reports and Witness Testimonies:

• Details of Injuries: Post mortem reports and injury details indicate serious injuries and attribute roles to the accused.

Relevant Parameters for Granting Bail:

• Considerations include the nature of accusations, gravity of the offense, role of the accused, criminal antecedents, and potential to tamper with witnesses.

Cancellation of Bail:

• Bail should not be cancelled mechanically, but unreasoned or perverse orders can be interfered with by a superior court.

Discussion:

• Examination of Pleas: The Supreme Court found the High Court's bail orders unjustified, noting the respondents' criminal history and attempts to threaten witnesses.

Conclusion:

• Setting Aside Bail Orders: The Supreme Court set aside the bail orders and directed the respondents to surrender within two weeks. The observations made are limited to the bail issue and do not reflect on the merits of the ongoing trial.