The division judge bench of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli of the apex court in the case of Ajwar Vs Niyaj Ahmad & Ors held that 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.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the accused, who had prior enmity with the parties discriminately fired at the appellant and his sons. The result of that incident is that one son died on the spot and the other son died on the way to the hospital. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed for the offenses punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 302, 307, and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. When the first and the second bail application was already dismissed, the first respondent moved to the high court for a grant of bail and granted bail to the accused.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the two sons of the appellant have been murdered in the same course of the incident. Further, the first respondent's role emerged during the statements recorded under section 161 Crpc. It is also submitted that after taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the crime, there is no justification for the grant of bail.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state-supported the contentions raised by the appellant and stated that the high court has erred in granting bail after taking into consideration the following circumstances, namely (i) The nature and gravity of the crime; (ii) The role attributed to the first respondent in the deposition of PW 1 and even prior thereto in the statements which were recorded during the course of the investigation; (iii) The recovery made of five country-made pistols; (iv) The postmortem reports which indicate that the death was caused due to gun-shot injuries suffered in the head and abdomen, respectively; and (v) The criminal antecedents of the first respondent.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has contended that the cross case was sought to be registered at the behest of the wife of the first respondent. Further, the FIR was registered at the instance of the magistrate. It is also submitted that the cross case was registered on the information provided by his wife.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The apex court held that 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.
The court further relied upon the judgments titled Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar, and Aminuddin V. State of Uttar Pradesh and held that 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.
The top court held that the High Court has failed to notice the facts bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the offence. The incident has led to the murder of two sons of the appellant as a result of firearm injuries. The name of the first respondent has clearly emerged during the course of the investigation in the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. As a matter of fact, the cross case alleging that the first respondent was injured during the course of the investigation would indicate prima facie, his presence at the scene of the incident. Once the role of the first respondent has emerged during the course of the investigation, followed by the filing of a charge-sheet, the court is clearly of the view that no case for the grant of bail was made out before the High Court and the first respondent upon being granted bail has consistently remained absent from the trial and has sought repeated adjournments as a result of which the cross-examination of the witnesses has remained to be concluded. As a result, it is evident that the first respondent upon being released on bail has failed to cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial despite the directions given by the High Court. He is evading the conclusion of the trial.
CASE NAME- Ajwar Vs Niyaj Ahmad & Ors
CITATION- Criminal Appeal No 1722 of 2022
CORUM- Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
DATE-30.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :