AJWAR versus WASEEM AND ANOTHER
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 575, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 575 : 2024 INSC 438
Ajwar 
v. 
Waseem and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 2639 of 2024)
17 May 2024 
[Hima Kohli* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
High Court, if justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 439(1) Cr.P.C 
for granting regular bail in favour of the accused persons.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439(1) – Special 
powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail – 
Complainant’s case that on account of previous enmity, the 
accused persons indiscriminately fired at the complainant 
and his two sons, resulting in death of his sons and serious 
injuries to his nephew – Grant of regular bail to the accused 
by the High Court – Justification:
Held: Orders granting bail not justified and suffers from grave 
infirmity – High Court completely lost sight of the principles that 
conventionally govern a Court’s discretion at the time of deciding 
whether bail ought to be granted or not – High Court ignored 
that the complainant stuck to his version as recorded in the FIR 
and even after entering the witness-box, the complainant and 
three eyewitnesses specified the roles of the accused in the 
entire incident – High Court also overlooked the fact that the 
accused had previous criminal history – One of the accused 
while on bail, is alleged to have committed the double murder 
of the complainant’s son – Allegations that three of the accused 
threatened one of the key eye-witnesses in open Court, and an
FIR was registered – High Court also overlooked the period of 
custody of the accused for such a grave offence alleged to have 
been committed by them – Furthermore, in the cross-FIR filed by 
accused persons, closure was filed by the police – Protest petition 
filed by complainant is pending arguments – Thus, the accused do 
not deserve the concession of bail – Impugned orders quashed 
and set aside. [Paras 30-35]
576
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Bail – Grant of, in cases involving serious offences – Relevant 
parameters to be considered:
Held: Courts to consider the nature of the accusations made 
against the accused; the manner in which the crime is alleged 
to have been committed; the gravity of the offence; the role 
attributed to the accused; the criminal antecedents of the accused; 
the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the 
offence, if the accused released on bail; and the possibility of 
obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice. 
[Para 26]
Bail – Grant of – Cancellation, when – Considerations for 
setting aside the bail:
Held: Bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical 
manner – However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail 
always open to interference by the superior Court – If there 
are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not 
misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled 
by the same Court that has granted the bail – Bail can also 
be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts 
below have ignored the relevant material available on record 
or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on 
the society resulting in such an order – Bail can be set aside 
when any supervening circumstances may have occurred after 
granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while 
on bail, attempt on the part of the accused to
delay the trial, 
attempt to tamper with the evidence, threats being extended to 
the witnesses while on bail – However, the court to examine only 
a prima facie case, and detailed reasons relating to the merits 
of the case to be avoided – Bail order should reveal the factors 
that have been considered by the court for granting relief to the 
accused. [Paras 27, 28]
Case Law Cited
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Another [2019] 14 SCR 
529 : (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ajwar v. Niyaj Ahmad and Another 
[2022] 7 SCR 356 : (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1403; Jagjeet 
Singh and Others v. Ashish Mishra [2022] 4 SCR 536 : (2022) 9 
SCC 321; Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
577
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
[2022] 4 SCR 1 : (2022) 8 SCC 559; P v. State of Madhya 
Pradesh and Another [2022] 3 SCR 823 : (2022) 15 SCR 211; 
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and 
Another (2004) 7 SCC 528; Kumer Singh v. State of Rajasthan 
and Another [2021] 6 SCR 539 : (2021) SCC OnLine SC 511; 
Yashpal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2022] 4 
SCR 835 : (2023) SCC Online SC 347; Manno Lal Jaiswal v. 
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2022] 1 SCR 990 : (2022) 
15 SCC 248; Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Another [2004] 
Supp. 3 SCR 584 : (2004) 7 SCC 525; Masroor v. State of Uttar 
Pradesh and Another [2009] 6 SCR 1030 : (2009) 14 SCC 286; 
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another [2010] 12 
SCR 1165 : (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar 
Pradesh and Another [2014] 12 SCR 453 : (2014) 16 SCC 508; 
Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [2017] 11 
SCR 195 : (2018 12 SCC 129); Puran v. Ram Bilas and Another 
[2001] 3 SCR 432 : (2001) 6 SCC 338; Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) 
v. State of Gujarat and Another [2008] 6 SCR 1149 : (2008) 13 
SCC 584 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Bail; Regular bail; Double murder; Eye-witnesses; Period of custody 
of the accused; Protest petition; Nature of the accusations; Gravity of 
the offence; Role attributed to the accused; Criminal antecedents of 
the accused; Probability of tampering of the witnesses;
Unreasoned 
or perverse order of bail; Misused the bail granted; Supervening 
circumstances.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2639 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2022 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMBA No. 26740 of 2022
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2640, 2641 and 2642 of 2024
578
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Shreeyash U. Lalit, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Md. Anas Chaudhary, 
Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Pulkit Agarwal, Vikas Kumar, Mohammad 
Asim Khan, Shoaib Ahmad Khan, Faiyaz Khalid, Kavindra Yadav, 
Altamash Ahmad, Sandeep Garausa, Krishnagopal Abhay, Ms. 
Runjhun Garg, Abhinav Aggarwal, Himanshu Vats, Iduddin, Jazib 
Siddiqui, Ms. Bushra Ali, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G., Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. 
Preeti Gupta, Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Kartikeye Dang, MZ Chaudhary, 
Hamid Ali, Gufran Ali, Ms. Rubina, Sadik, Sheryab Ali, Rajat Singh, 
Ms. Shweta Yadav, Ms. Vartika Singh, Ms. Ananya Sahu, Sarthak 
Chandra, Deepesh Singh, Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Hima Kohli, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The present appeals are directed against four different orders passed 
by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad on applications moved by Waseem (accused No. 7)1, 
Nazim (accused No. 8)2, Aslam (accused No. 2)3 and Abubakar 
(accused No.1)4 under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 
19735 for seeking regular bail in respect of Case Crime No.126 of 
2020 registered at Police Station Mundali, District Meerut, Uttar 
Pradesh for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 
307, 352 and 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18606. 
Vide orders dated 07th December, 2022, 13th
February, 2023 and 
02nd March, 2023 and 21st March, 2023 respectively, the applications 
filed by Waseem, Nazim, Aslam and Abubakar were allowed by 
1	
Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) 513 of 2023
2	
Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) 2437 of 2023
3	
Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13404 of 2023
4	
Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 16310 of 2023
5	
Cr.P.C.
6	
IPC
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
579
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
different Benches of the High Court. Aggrieved by the said orders, 
the appellant-Complainant has approached this Court. 
BRIEF FACTS
3.	
The relevant facts of the case, as recorded in a First Information 
Report7 registered on the complaint received from the appellant - 
complainant herein on 19th May, 2020, are that the incident in question 
had taken place on 19th May, 2020 at 7.30 in the evening when the 
appellant-complainant, his two sons, Abdul Khaliq and Abdul Majid 
with some other persons were sitting in the baithak of his house for 
breaking the fast (Roza Iftar) and preparing to offer prayers. The 
accused persons (10 in number, namely, Nazim, Abubakar, Waseem, 
Aslam, Gayyur, Nadeem, Hamid, Akram, Qadir and Danish) arrived at 
the spot and indiscriminately fired at the appellant and his two sons. 
Both the sons of the appellant died on the spot and his nephew, 
Asjad was seriously injured. The appellant-complainant has alleged 
that there was previous enmity between the parties due to which the 
accused persons had attacked him and his sons.
4.	
Pertinently, Niyaz Ahmed, father of Waseem (accused No. 7) was 
not named in the FIR. His role in the incident came up during the 
course of the investigation conducted by the police and based 
thereon, his name was added as a co-accused. On completion of 
the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted under Section 173 
Cr.P.C. on 23rd June, 2020 against eight accused
including Abubakar 
(accused No. 1), Niyaz Ahmad, Aslam (accused No.2) and Nazim 
(accused No. 8). Aslam is the nephew of Nazir and Nazim is the 
cousin of Waseem, whose father, Niyaz Ahmad was enlarged on bail 
by the High Court, vide order dated 4th August 2022, which order 
was set aside by this Court on 30th September, 2022 in a Criminal 
Appeal8 filed by the appellant-complainant. Three other accused 
were not found to be involved in the offence and on conclusion of 
the investigation, no chargesheet was filed against them.
PROCEEDINGS AFTER FILING OF CHARGESHEET
5.	
After the chargesheet was filed, the case was committed to the 
Sessions Court and was registered as Sessions Trial No.574 of 
7	
FIR
8	
Criminal Appeal No.1722 of 2022
580
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
2020. The same is pending trial before the Court of the Additional 
Sessions Judge, Court 15, Meerut. Charges were framed and twenty 
witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Out of the said list 
of witnesses, seven are eyewitnesses. The trial has commenced. 
Four eyewitnesses have been examined so far. Three eyewitnesses 
are yet to be examined. The statement of the appellant-complainant 
(PW-1) and three other eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4) have 
been recorded. The prime witnesses have elaborated the role of 
the respondents herein, i.e., Waseem (A-7), Nazim (A-8), Aslam 
(A-2) and Abubakar (A-1). Two more witnesses were summoned for 
examination on 7th May, 2024.
REASONS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EARLIER BAIL ORDER 
GRANTED BY THE HIGH COURT IN FAVOUR OF WASEEM
6.	
Earlier hereto, Waseem(A-7) was granted bail by the High Court 
vide order dated 22nd August 20229. The said order was challenged 
by the appellant-complainant before this Court10. Vide order dated 
14th October, 2022, this Court cancelled the bail granted to Waseem 
observing that it was apparent from a perusal of the order dated 
22nd August, 2022 passed by the High Court that Waseem was 
granted bail on the basis of a co-ordinate Bench granting bail to his 
father, Niyaz Ahmad, vide order dated 4th August, 2022. Since the 
order passed in favour of Niyaz Ahmad was set aside by this Court 
vide order dated 30th September, 2022, the bail application
filed by 
Waseem before the High Court was restored for fresh consideration 
and expeditious disposal, preferably within a period of one month 
from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order. It is expedient 
to extract below the relevant part of the order dated 30th September, 
202211, passed by a Division Bench of this Court [of which one of 
us (Hima Kohli, J) was a member], overturning the order passed by 
the High Court granting bail in favour of Niyaz Ahmad:
“9.	
At the outset, it needs to be noted that this Court has 
had occasion to peruse a succession of orders by 
the same Judge of the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad (which were challenged in Special Leave 
9	
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26740 of 2022
10	
Criminal Appeal No. 1784 of 2022
11	
Criminal Appeal No.1722 of 2022 (Ajwar Vs. Niyaz Ahmad and Anr.).
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
581
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
Petitions before this Court) containing identical reasons 
as recorded above for the grant of bail. As a matter of 
fact, in the counter affidavit, which has been filed by 
the first respondent, the fact that similar orders have 
been passed by the Single Judge has been relied upon 
though with the submission that the first respondent 
should not be penalized for the High Court’s failure 
to record adequate reasons. The first respondent in 
the course of his counter affidavit states as follows:
“…In fact, the present case is not the only 
case, in which so called reasons are not 
assigned by the Hon’ble High Court while 
grating bail. There are many other cases 
also in which the same or similar orders 
were passed by the Hon’ble High Court and 
perhaps will be passed in future, as well. 
Therefore, the Respondent No.1 may not 
be penalized for something on which he 
has no control at all and it is the judicial 
discretion of the Hon’ble High Court to 
give reasons or not to give reasons while 
granting bail…”
10.	 The manner in which the Single Judge of the High 
Court has disposed of the application for bail is 
unsatisfactory. 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. 
11.	 In successive orders, the Single Judge of the High 
Court granted bail containing the same sentence,
582
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
purportedly of reasons. Merely recording that the 
Court has had regard to the nature of the accusation, 
the severity of the punishment in the case of 
conviction, the nature of supporting evidence, prima 
facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, 
reformative theory of punishment and the larger 
mandate of Article 21 is not a satisfactory method for 
the simple reason that the facts of the case have to 
be considered. Moreover, not all the circumstances 
referred to above will weigh in the same direction. The 
duty to consider the circumstances of the case cannot 
be obviated by setting down legal formulations.”
7.	
This Court noted that as the order grating bail in favour of Niyaz 
Ahmad had been set aside, the subsequent order passed by the 
High Court on 22nd August, 2022, granting regular bail in favour 
of the accused Waseem could not be sustained. As a result, the 
appeal preferred by the appellant-complainant was allowed and the 
order granting bail in favour of Waseem(A-7) was set aside with a 
direction issued to the High Court to consider the matter afresh. It 
is on the basis of the said directions that the impugned order has 
been passed. The factors that have persuaded the learned Single 
Judge of the High Court to allow the application filed by the accused, 
Waseem are encapsulated in the following para : 
“Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the 
nature of allegation, the gravity
of offence, the severity 
of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the 
accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, 
considering the law laid down in the case of Lakshmi Singh 
and others vs. State of Bihar and Others, Babu Ram 
and Others vs. State of Punjab and Amarjeet Singh vs. 
State of Haryana, this Court thinks that eleven accused 
persons are said to have assaulted the complainant side 
after indiscriminate firing in which only three persons had 
sustained injuries on their persons, who later on, died in the 
hospital from the side of the complainant and the accused 
side had also received serious injuries, accused Niyaj 
Ahmad has also suffered gun shot injury in the incident 
and the injuries sustained by the accused side has not 
been explained by the prosecution. They ought to have
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
583
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
been explained by the prosecution and since it seems that 
there is a cross version of the incident and it is very difficult 
to ascertain at this stage who was the aggressor and it 
will be decided at the stage of trial after taking evidence 
from both the sides; but without expressing any opinion 
on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.”
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-COMPLAINANT
8.	
Appearing for the appellant-complainant, Mr. Shreeyash U. Lalit and 
Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, learned counsel submitted that this is a 
case of double murder of two young sons of the appellant-complainant 
at the hands of the accused persons who harboured previous enmity 
against him and his family members. Waseem (A-7) was arrested 
on 27th May, 2020. The other accused persons were arrested on 
different dates. After their arrest, the police conducted a search of 
the respondents and recovered five illegal country-made pistols, 
seven live cartridges and five used cartridges from the possession 
of Aslam (A-2). A specific role has been attributed to each of the four 
respondents herein that resulted in the death of the appellant’s two 
sons and serious injuries to his nephew. All the four respondents 
herein were named in the FIR, besides the other co-accused. During 
the course of investigation, the statements of eleven independent 
witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein an 
active role has been
attributed to all the four respondents. Later on, 
the appellant-complainant entered the witness box and appeared as 
PW-1. He has reiterated the role played by the respondents herein 
in committing the offence. Two other independent eye witnesses, 
namely, Abdullah (PW-2), Asjad (PW-3) and Fahimuddin (PW-4) 
have supported the testimony of the appellant (PW-1).
9.	
Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant further states that the 
High Court has completely overlooked the fact that the respondents-
accused parties were the aggressors who had forcibly entered the 
house of the appellant-complainant and indiscriminately fired at 
him, his sons and other persons who had gathered at his house to 
break the fast. They have criminal antecedents and several cases 
are registered against them. Even before completion of a period 
of six months granted by the High Court, by an earlier order dated 
7th April, 2022 passed on an application moved by the appellant-
complainant under Section 482 Cr.P.C for issuing directions to the
584
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
trial Court to complete the trial in a definite period, the High Court 
has proceeded to grant bail in favour of Waseem on the grounds of 
parity with his father; similar orders have been passed in favour of 
Nazim12, Aslam13 and Abubakar14. It has also been pointed out that 
from the side of the accused persons, a cross case was registered15 
on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) of the 
Cr.P.C. The matter was investigated and the police filed its final report. 
The Magistrate directed fresh investigation, which was followed by 
a second final report. Yet again, the Magistrate passed an order 
on 18th November, 2022 directing further investigation and the said 
case was reopened. A closure report was subsequently submitted 
which was placed before the Magistrate on 5th August, 2023 and is 
pending final orders.
10.	 It was next argued by learned counsel for the appellant-complainant 
that the respondents have been deliberately delaying conclusion of 
the trial on one pretext or the other. He submitted that this conduct 
of the respondents was adversely commented upon by the Additional 
Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Meerut in his order dated 23rd August, 
202216, wherein it was observed that five dates were taken by the 
accused but they failed to cross-examine the appellant – complainant 
and the accused were cautioned that if the cross-examination 
would not be completed, then their right to
cross-examine him 
would be closed. To delay the trial, the co-accused, Niyaz Ahmad 
filed a transfer petition before the Sessions Court, requesting that 
the trial be conducted by some other Additional Sessions Judge, 
on the plea of bias. This application was rejected vide order dated 
7th December, 2022. The order dated 07th December, 2022 was 
unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court and vide order 
dated 08th February, 2023, the Transfer Application17 of Niyaz Ahmed 
was dismissed. It was observed that the trial was at the initial stage 
and several applications were being moved before the trial Court for 
lingering the trial. Yet again, as a strategy, the counsel engaged by 
12	
vide order dated 13th February, 2023
13	
vide order dated 2nd March, 2023
14	
Vide order dated 21st March, 2023
15	
Case Crime No.361/2020 
16	
Session Case No. 1126 of 2020
17	
Transfer Application (Crl.) No. 688 of 2022
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
585
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
four accused persons withdrew his power of attorney, stating that 
his clients weren’t co-operating with him. When the Sessions Court 
closed their right to cross-examine PW-2 vide order dated 14th March, 
2023, Nazim Ali approached the High Court18. Vide order dated 16th 
May, 2023, the High Court allowed the said application subject to 
costs of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable to PW-2 
and permitted his cross examination. 
11.	 As for the subsequent conduct of the respondents, it was pointed 
out that after being released on bail, one of the prime eyewitnesses, 
Abdullah (PW-2) was sought to be intimidated by them and their 
supporters. Abdullah (PW-2) filed a complaint on 21st March, 2023 
which was registered as an FIR19, wherein it was alleged that five 
accused persons i.e. three respondents herein (Waseem, Nazim and 
Aslam) and the co-accused, Hamid and Ayyub had threatened him 
in open Court. After he left the Court premises, he was thrashed by 
them. On an application moved by PW-2, he was extended protection 
by the Court. Subsequently, the police filed a closure report in respect 
of the captioned FIR, but the learned Magistrate passed an order on 
7th July, 2023, directing further investigation in the matter. 
12.	 Lastly, it has been contended that none of the respondents have 
clean antecedents, which is apparent from the counter affidavit filed 
by the respondent No.2 – State of Uttar Pradesh,
which aspect has 
been lost sight of by the High Court while granting bail in their favour. 
13.	 In support of their submission that individual facts of the case are 
relevant factors that must be considered by the court while considering 
a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for 
the appellants cited the decisions of this Court in Mahipal vs. 
Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Another20, Ajvar vs. Niyaj Ahmad 
and Another21, Jagjeet Singh and Others vs. Ashish Mishra22, 
Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another23 and P vs. 
18	
Application No. 18195 of 2023
19	
FIR No.0095 dated 22nd March, 2023
20	
[2019] 14 SCR 529 : (2020) 2 SCC 118
21	
[2022] 7 SCR 356 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1403
22	
[2022] 4 SCR 536 : (2022) 9 SCC 321 
23	
[2022] 4 SCR 1 : (2022) 8 SCC 559
586
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another24 urging that the accused 
herein have been in custody for less than three years and were not 
entitled to any relief by way of bail. Reliance has been placed on 
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and 
Another25. Kumer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Another26, 
Yashpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another27 and 
Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another28 have 
been cited to urge that at the stage of considering an application for 
being released on regular bail, the individual role of each accused 
is not required to be considered when they were allegedly a part of 
an unlawful assembly and charged with offences punishable under 
Section 149 IPC. 
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED-
RESPONDENTS
14.	 The present petitions have been strongly opposed by Mr. Siddharth 
Luthra, Senior Advocate appearing for the accused-respondents 
Waseem, Nazim and Aslam and Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, learned 
counsel for the accused-respondent Abubakar. Learned counsel 
submitted that any delay in completing the trial cannot be attributed 
to the respondents and the adjournments referred to by the learned 
trial judge in the order dated 23rd August 2022 were not on account of 
the respondents. In fact, the prosecution witness was available only 
on two dates for his cross-examination and only one date was taken 
by the accused, Niyaz Ahmed on medical
grounds. He submitted 
that accused Waseem did not misuse the liberty granted to him by 
the High Court vide order dated 22nd August, 2022 and when his 
bail order was set aside by this Court on 14th October, 2022 and 
remanded back to the High Court for passing a reasoned order, he 
had surrendered on time. The allegation that the respondents are 
involved in several other cases is also refuted by learned counsel 
stating that the accused Waseem is involved in only one other 
24	
[2022] 3 SCR 823 : (2022) 15 SCR 211
25	
(2004) 7 SCC 528
26	
[2021] 6 SCR 539 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 511
27	
[2022] 4 SCR 835 : (2023) SCC Online SC 347
28	
[2022] 1 SCR 990 : (2022) 15 SCC 248
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
587
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
case29 besides the present one, where he is on bail. The co-accused 
Nazim is also similarly stated to be involved in one other case, i.e. 
the captioned case along with Waseem, besides the present case 
(namely Criminal Case no. 214 of 2016) where he has been released 
on bail. As for the accused Aslam, it is stated that besides the present 
case, he is involved in CC No. 214/1630, CC No. 129/2031 and CC 
No. 95/2332. The accused Abubakar is involved in one other case28 
besides the present one. 
15.	 Learned counsel submitted that the appellant-complainant himself is 
a well-known criminal of the area, having several cases registered 
against him as also his two sons. The criminal history of the appellant-
complaint and his two deceased sons, Abdul Majid and Abdul Khaliq 
have been detailed in paras 19 to 21 of the counter affidavit. As per 
the respondents, the appellant-complainant is involved in 10 criminal 
cases and his two deceased sons, Abdul Majid was involved in 21 
criminal cases and Abdul Khaliq was involved in 2 cases. 
16.	 Next, contending that bail once granted cannot be cancelled until 
there are supervening circumstances and in the present case there 
are no such circumstances that require setting aside of the impugned 
orders, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned 
orders and requested that the present appeals be dismissed. It was 
additionally submitted that even when the accused
Waseem was 
released on bail, he had abided by the conditions of bail imposed 
on him and did not misuse the liberty in any manner. 
17.	 On merits, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there 
was previous enmity between the parties; that three persons had been 
falsely introduced in the FIR against whom no case was made out and 
after investigation, their names were dropped from the chargesheet; 
that the prime eye-witnesses (PW-1, 2, 3 and 4) are related to the 
deceased being their father/uncle/cousin, etc. Several loopholes in 
the prosecution version were sought to be highlighted by the learned 
counsel for the respondents relating to conducting the inquest of the 
deceased Abdul Majid, the difference in the time between reporting 
29	
Crime Case No. 214 of 2016 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 342, 323, 308 IPC, P.S. Mundali, Meerut.
30	
Under Sections 147/148/149/342/323/308 IPC, P.S. Mundali District Meerut.
31	
Under Sections 3/25 Arms Act IPC, P.S. Mundali District Meerut.
32	
Under Section 504/506 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines District Meerut.
588
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the crime that took place on 19th May, 2020, at 2030 hours as against 
the time when the investigation had allegedly started (1818 hours); 
the alleged manipulation in the Medico Legal Reports of the injured, 
Asjad; the role of Asjad (nephew of the appellant-complainant) who 
had allegedly called twice on the mobile phone of Abubakar (brother 
of the accused, Waseem) which fact could be verified from the CDR 
details of the mobile phone and showed that the injured Asjad was 
the aggressor who had threatened to kill Waseem’s brother. It was 
also contended that the appellant-complainant and 15 other persons 
with him were present at the mosque and not at his residence, as 
recorded in the chargesheet and they were the ones who had badly 
assaulted Waseem’s brother, entered his residence and thrashed his 
family members. Aggrieved by the same, when Waseem’s mother 
(Ms. Saeeda Begum) had filed a Complaint Case on 07th July, 2020 
before the Court of the Additional Magistrate-I, Meerut, an order was 
passed directing the police to register an FIR33 against 15 persons. A 
closure report was filed by the local police but the Judicial Magistrate 
did not accept the same and has directed further investigation in 
the matter.
18.	 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the real reason 
behind the dispute between the appellant-complainant and his family 
members and the accused and his family members related to political
rivalry as the appellant-complainant had lost the election for the 
post of Village Pradhan and then proceeded to falsely implicate the 
accused persons.
19.	 Learned counsel argued that where there are two bullet injuries, one 
each to the two deceased by three assailants, there is a possibility 
of over-implication of the accused persons. Finally, an assurance 
has sought to be extended to this Court that the respondents will 
not abscond as they are permanent residents of the village and they 
shall continue cooperating for timely completion of the trial.
20.	 Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the 
respondent No. 2 – State of Uttar Pradesh has filed a counter 
affidavit34 supporting the case of the appellant-complainant and 
stating inter alia that the High Court did not consider the fact that 
33	
Case Crime No. 361 of 2020 under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 307, 34, 504 and 506 of IPC 
34	
In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 513 of 2023
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
589
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
the present case involves a serious offence. There are accounts 
of eye-witnesses that have categorically specified the role of the 
accused-respondents and that there was a definite motive to commit 
the offence and injuries were caused intentionally that had resulted 
in the death of the two deceased persons. It was further submitted 
that there is a likelihood of the accused persons influencing the trial 
and threatening the eye-witnesses.
QUESTION INVOLVED
21.	 We have heard learned counsels for the parties, carefully examined 
the records and the impugned orders. The short question that falls for 
our consideration is whether the High Court was justified in exercising 
jurisdiction under Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C for granting regular 
bail in favour of the respondents in the facts and circumstances of 
the present case.
FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION 
22.	 As noted above, this is the third time that the appellant-complainant 
has approached this Court for relief. Earlier hereto, aggrieved by the 
order dated 4th of August, 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge 
of High Court of judicature at Allahabad, directing release of Niyaz 
Ahmad (father of the accused, Waseem) in connection with the very 
same case, the appellant-complainant had filed an appeal35. Noting 
that successive orders were being passed by the same judge of 
the High Court mentioning identical reasons as stated in the order 
dated 4th August, 2022, this
Court had expressed its dissatisfaction 
and opined that merely setting down legal formulations cannot be 
a ground for granting bail and that due application of mind was 
not apparent in the facts of the case that reveals the seriousness 
and gravity of the offence. As a result, the order dated 14th August, 
2022, enlarging Niyaz Ahmad on bail was set aside and the appeal 
preferred by the appellant-complainant was allowed. 
SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION
23.	 The second round of litigation took place when the appellant-
complainant approached this Court being aggrieved by an order dated 
22nd August, 2022, passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court 
35	
Criminal Appeal No. 1722 of 2022 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8139 of 2022)
590
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
admitting the accused Waseem to bail in the same case36. Since 
bail was granted in favour of the accused Waseem on parity with 
his father, Niyaz Ahmad and the said order37 was subsequently set 
aside by this Court on 30th September, 2022, the appeal preferred 
by the appellant-complainant38 was allowed and the application for 
bail filed by the accused Waseem was restored to be decided afresh 
by the High Court. 
PRESENT ROUND OF LITIGATION
24.	 The third and present round of litigation has commenced on four 
orders passed by learned Single Judges of the High Court, impugned 
herein in respect of the four accused respondents. The first order 
dated 07th December, 2022 enlarging the accused Waseem on bail, 
was passed on merits. The subsequent three orders dated 13th 
February, 2023, 02nd March, 2023 and 21st March, 2023, granting 
bail in favour of Nazim, Aslam and Abubakar respectively, are on 
grounds of parity.
POST MORTEM REPORT OF THE TWO DECEASED PERSONS, 
SONS OF THE APPELLANT-COMPLAINANT
25.	 We may note that the post mortem report of the deceased, Abdul 
Khaliq shows that he had received one firearm injury in his head 
and the cause of his death was cranio-cerebral damage as a result 
of ante-mortem firearm injury which was sufficient to cause death in 
ordinary course of nature. The post mortem report of the deceased, 
Abdul Majid showed that he had sustained one firearm entry wound 
in the abdomen and one exit
wound corresponding to each other 
and the cause of his death was shock and hemorrhage as a result 
of ante-mortem firearm injury. The injury report of the injured, Asjad 
(nephew of the appellant-complaint) showed that he had sustained 
a lacerated wound on the skull and bruises and abrasion on other 
parts of his body. All the three respondents herein have been named 
in the FIR alongwith five other accused. The appellant-complainant 
being the informant, had reiterated the events narrated in the FIR 
in his statement recorded on 20th of May, 2020 under Section 161 
36	
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26740 of 2022
37	
Order dated 4th August, 2022 by the High Court.
38	
Criminal Appeal no. 1784 of 2022 arising out of SLP(Crl.) 9342 of 2022
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
591
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
Cr.P.C. After the chargesheet was submitted in Court on 23rd June, 
2020, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was 
committed to the Sessions Court for trial. So far, deposition of four 
eye-witnesses have been recorded (PW 1, 2, 3 and 4) and all of 
them have attributed a role to the accused respondents.
RELEVANT PARAMETERS FOR GRANTING BAIL 
26.	 While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter 
involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant 
factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, 
the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, 
the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the 
criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of 
the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released 
on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event 
bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and 
evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing 
the accused on bail. (Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and 
Another39; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu 
Yadav and Another (supra); Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh 
and Another40; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and 
Another41; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another42 ; 
Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another43; Mahipal 
v.
Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Another (supra).
27.	 It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be 
cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or 
perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior 
Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if 
he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be 
cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also 
be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts below 
have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked 
into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting 
39	
[2004] Supp. 3 SCR 584 : (2004) 7 SCC 525
40	
[2009] 6 SCR 1030 : (2009) 14 SCC 286
41	
[2010] 12 SCR 1165 : (2010) 14 SCC 496
42	
[2014] 12 SCR 453 : (2014) 16 SCC 508
43	
[2017] 11 SCR 195 : (2018 12 SCC 129)
592
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in such an order. In P v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another 
(supra) decided by a three judges bench of this Court [authored by 
one of us (Hima Kohli, J)] has spelt out the considerations that must 
weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an 
accused under Section 439(1) of the CrPC in the following words:
“24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for 
cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider 
whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or 
the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates 
that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him 
to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail 
during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 
349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] . To put it differently, in ordinary 
circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with 
an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such 
an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on 
material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible 
to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.”
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SETTING ASIDE BAIL ORDERS 
28.	 The considerations that weigh with the appellate Court for setting aside 
the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party 
include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after 
granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on 
bail, any
attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting 
in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the 
witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to 
tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list 
is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be 
cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case 
needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits 
of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be 
avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the 
factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief 
to the accused. 
29.	 In Jagjeet Singh (supra), a three-Judges bench of this Court, has 
observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C is of 
wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case 
may be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
593
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
application for bail. But this discretion is not unfettered. The order 
passed must reflect due application of judicial mind following well 
established principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be 
slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the 
courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse 
or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate Court would 
be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail. (Also refer: 
Puran v. Ram Bilas and Another44; Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. 
State of Gujarat and Another45) 
DISCUSSION
30.	 Keeping in mind the aforesaid parameters, we may now proceed 
to examine the pleas taken by the parties so as to decide as to 
whether the impugned orders can be sustained or not. On a careful 
consideration of the entire records, we are inclined to agree with 
submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-complainant 
that the impugned orders are unjustified and suffer from grave infirmity. 
The primary factor that has swayed the learned Single Judge of the 
High Court in granting bail to the accused Waseem is that even though 
the prosecution version is that 11 accused persons had assaulted the 
appellant-complainant and members of his family on indiscriminate 
firing taking place, only three persons had sustained injuries and two 
had expired on the side of the appellant-complainant. At the same 
time, serious injuries
were also received on the side of the accused 
which could not be explained by the prosecution. In the case of the 
accused Nazim, the High Court observed that there was no distinction 
between the role attributed to him and the co-accused Waseem and 
that the injuries suffered on the side of the respondent had not been 
explained by the prosecution. The High Court has also gone on to 
observe that the investigation conducted by the police was one-sided 
and the case set up by the accused side was ignored. In the case 
of Aslam, his bail application was allowed and learned Single Judge 
observed that there is a cross-version of the incident inasmuch as 
the accused side had also received serious injuries which were not 
satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. In the case of Abubakar, 
noting that the co-accused Aslam was granted bail by a coordinate 
44	
[2001] 3 SCR 432 : (2001) 6 SCC 338
45	
[2008] 6 SCR 1149 : (2008) 13 SCC 584
594
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Bench and the case of Abubakar was similar to that of Aslam, he 
was granted the benefit of bail on grounds of parity.
31.	 In our opinion, the High Court has completely lost sight of the 
principles that conventionally govern a Court’s discretion at the time 
of deciding whether bail ought to be granted or not. The High Court 
has ignored the fact that the appellant-complainant has stuck to 
his version as recorded in the FIR and that even after entering the 
witness-box, the appellant-complainant and three eyewitnesses have 
specified the roles of the accused-respondents in the entire incident. 
The High Court has also overlooked the fact that the respondents 
have previous criminal history details whereof have been furnished 
by the Counsel for the State of UP. It is worthwhile to note that the 
accused Nazim was granted bail in FIR No. 214 of 2016 on 10th 
January, 2017 and while on bail, he is alleged to have committed a 
double murder of the two sons of the appellant-complainant.
32.	 To top it all, while on bail, there have been allegations that three 
of the accused-respondents herein have threatened one of the key 
eye-witnesses, Abdullah (PW-2) in open Court, thrashed him and 
threatened to kill him in the Court premises. On his approaching the 
trial Court for police protection, appropriate orders were passed in 
his favour and an FIR got registered46. Though the police had filed a 
closure report, dissatisfied
with the same, the Magistrate has directed 
further investigation. The attempt to delay the trial on the part of the 
respondents has also surfaced from the records. 
33.	 Furthermore and most importantly, the High Court has overlooked 
the period of custody of the respondents-accused for such a grave 
offence alleged to have been committed by them. As per the 
submission made by learned counsel for the State of UP, before 
being released on bail, the accused-Waseem had undergone custody 
for a period of about two years four months, the accused-Nazim for 
a period of two years eight months, the accused-Aslam for a period 
of about two years nine months and the accused Abubakar, for a 
period of two years ten months. In other words, all the accused-
respondents have remained in custody for less than three years 
for such a serious offence of a double murder for which they have 
been charged. 
46	
FIR No. 95 of 2023
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
595
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
34.	 Learned Counsel for the appellants and the State of UP have also 
informed this Court that in the cross-FIR filed by Smt. Saeeda Begum 
(w/o Niyaz Ahmad mother of Waseem) at the instance of the accused 
persons, a closure was filed by the police. Vide order dated 04th 
September, 2023, the Magistrate issued notice to the complainant in 
the cross-FIR. A protest petition has been filed by the complainant 
herein which is pending arguments. In the meantime, the appellant 
herein moved an application in the captioned case stating that though 
three affidavits (of Usman Ali, Alenbi and Farhana) were annexed 
with the protest petition to support the cross-complaint, on being 
examined, all three persons have denied having sworn the said 
affidavits. Accordingly, the appellant has filed an application under 
Section 340 Cr.P.C against the complainant in the cross-FIR which 
has been registered vide order dated 15th January, 2024 and is due 
to come up for arguments.
35.	 All the aforesaid factors when examined collectively, leave no manner 
of doubt that the respondents do not deserve the concession of bail. 
As a result, all the four impugned orders are quashed and set aside. 
The respondents are directed to surrender within two weeks from 
the date of passing of this order. It is, however, clarified that the 
observations made above are limited to examining the infirmities in 
the impugned orders and shall not be treated as
an opinion on the 
merits of the matter which is still pending trial. It is also clarified that 
in the event of any new circumstances emerging, the respondents 
shall be entitled to apply for bail at a later stage. 
36.	 The appeals arising out of the petitions for special leave to appeal 
are disposed of on the above terms. 
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain