Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Uttar Pradesh Murder Case Due to Witness Intimidation

The case of Aqeel Ahmad vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. revolves around the cancellation of bail granted to three accused in a brutal murder case. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the High Court erred in granting bail despite the seriousness of the crime, the potential for witness intimidation, and the strong evidence against the accused.

Background of the Case

The case originates from an incident on October 15, 2022, in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh. The victim, Khursheed Ahmad, was attacked by a group of assailants, including Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil. According to the FIR registered at Gambhirpur Police Station, the attackers:

Stopped the victim while he was returning home.
Brutally assaulted him using iron rods, sticks, and bricks.
Caused grievous injuries, which later led to his death.
Threatened and attacked eyewitnesses who tried to intervene.

The post-mortem report confirmed multiple skull fractures, broken ribs, and severe internal bleeding, concluding that the cause of death was blunt force trauma.

Following the attack, the police arrested the accused:

Abdullah was arrested on October 20, 2022.
Nasir was arrested on October 23, 2022.
Muzammil was arrested on October 27, 2022.

They were booked under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Section 302 – Murder
Section 147 – Rioting
Section 148 – Rioting with deadly weapons
Section 149 – Unlawful assembly
Section 336 – Endangering human life
Section 427 – Mischief causing damage

Legal Proceedings and Bail Grant

The accused filed bail applications before the Sessions Court, which rejected their requests due to the severity of the crime and the possibility of witness tampering. The accused then approached the Allahabad High Court, which granted bail:

Abdullah was granted bail on March 28, 2023.
Nasir was granted bail on April 7, 2023.
Muzammil was granted bail on December 14, 2023.

The complainant, Aqeel Ahmad (brother of the deceased), challenged the bail orders, arguing that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the crime and the ongoing threats to witnesses.

Arguments by the Appellant (Complainant)

The accused were specifically named in the FIR and played an active role in the murder.
The attack was pre-planned and executed with deadly weapons.
Witnesses had received multiple threats from the accused after their release.
The High Court ignored the Trial Court’s findings, which denied bail on valid grounds.
The accused had criminal antecedents and were likely to tamper with evidence.

Arguments by the Respondents (Accused)

The allegations were based on false implications due to personal rivalry.
There was no direct evidence proving that they caused the fatal injuries.
Their bail conditions prevented them from interfering with the case.
They had already spent significant time in custody before being granted bail.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court reviewed the case and identified several flaws in the High Court’s reasoning:

The High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the crime: “The accused were involved in a brutal murder, and granting bail in such a case without proper reasoning is a miscarriage of justice.”
Potential for witness intimidation: “The complainant has provided evidence of threats made to key witnesses. The accused’s release poses a direct risk to the integrity of the trial.”
Post-Mortem Report Corroborates Fatal Injuries: “The extent of the injuries inflicted suggests clear intent to kill, making this a strong case under Section 302 IPC.”
Judicial Precedent: “In cases of heinous crimes, bail should not be granted casually, especially when there is a high risk of tampering with evidence.”

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The High Court’s orders granting bail are legally unsustainable and must be set aside. The accused pose a threat to witnesses, and their bail must be cancelled immediately.”

Supreme Court’s Final Order

The bail granted to Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil was cancelled.
The accused were ordered to surrender within 10 days.
The Trial Court was directed to expedite the case within one year.
The police were instructed to provide protection to witnesses to prevent further intimidation.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

Bail in serious crimes must be granted only after a thorough examination of the facts.
Courts must balance personal liberty with public safety in cases involving heinous crimes.
Threats to witnesses can be valid grounds for bail cancellation.
Courts must ensure that bail orders are based on individual case merits and not a precedent from another accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that bail should not be granted casually in serious crimes like murder. The decision ensures that judicial discretion is exercised with caution, preventing accused persons from misusing bail privileges to evade justice or intimidate witnesses. By ordering the immediate arrest of the accused, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding justice and maintaining public confidence in the legal system.

Petitioner Name: Aqeel Ahmad.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Place Of Incident: Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 05-04-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: aqeel-ahmad-vs-state-of-uttar-prade-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-05-04-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category