LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ajwar v. Waseem

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 968Decided 29 Jul 2025
Crl.A. No.-003232-003232 - 2025 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) Diary No.33018 of 2025)
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah · Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Background

The respondent was an accused in a serious criminal case (including charges of murder and attempt to murder) filed by the appellant-informant. The respondent's bail had already been granted and then cancelled by the Supreme Court twice in earlier rounds of litigation, most recently by a detailed judgment dated 17.05.2024 which left open only a limited window to seek bail again if "new circumstances" emerged. After his fresh bail plea was rejected by the trial court, the respondent approached the Allahabad High Court, which granted him bail in June 2025 citing prison overcrowding and delay in trial, prompting the informant to appeal to the Supreme Court again.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order granting bail failed to properly engage with the Supreme Court's earlier 17.05.2024 judgment, which had already examined all relevant facts in detail and closed off those very grounds, and that the "new circumstances" the respondent relied on before the High Court were not genuinely new. The Court found the High Court's reasoning, invoking generalized observations about "one-sided investigation by police" and prison overcrowding, was unwarranted and had no real connection to the specific case, especially given the seriousness of the offence. Because the trial was already well advanced with most prosecution witnesses examined, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order, directed the respondent to surrender within three weeks, and further clarified that he would not be entitled to seek bail again until the trial concluded, though he could approach the Supreme Court directly if the trial was unreasonably delayed through no fault of his own.

Lesson Learnt

When the Supreme Court cancels bail after examining a case in detail, lower courts must give that ruling full deference and cannot re-grant bail on generic or previously-considered grounds dressed up as "new circumstances": bail orders still need genuine, case-specific reasoning even when courts are cautioned against writing lengthy, evidence-heavy orders.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case